Hi, Thomas > On 2023-08-01 10:07:28+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 07:30:14AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > This warnings will be enabled later so avoid triggering it. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 3 ++- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c > > > index 53a3773c7790..cb17cccd0bc7 100644 > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c > > > @@ -1089,7 +1089,8 @@ static int smash_stack(void) > > > return 1; > > > } > > > > > > -static int run_protection(int min, int max) > > > +static int run_protection(int __attribute__((unused)) min, > > > + int __attribute__((unused)) max) > > > > This one is used to silence -Wunused-parameter I guess. > > Yep. > > > It's one of > > the rare warnings that I find totally useless in field, because it's > > simply against the principle of using function pointers with different > > functions having the same interface but different implementations. As > > your code evolves you end up with unused on absolutely *all* of the > > arguments of *all* such functions, which makes them a real pain to add > > and tends to encourage poor practices such as excessive code reuse just > > by laziness or boredom. BTW it's one of those that are already disabled > > in the kernel and we could very well do the same here. > > It's indeed unfortunate. > > As long as we don't have too many of them I would prefer to keep the > explicit annotations. While they are ugly we then can still reap the > positive aspects of the warning. > > This is where -std=c89 bites us. With extensions (or C2X) we could also > just leave off the argument name to mark it as unused: > run_protection(int, int) what about further simply ignore the arguments like we did for main(void)? Thanks, Zhangjin
