Aug 1, 2023 12:15:27 Zhangjin Wu <falcon@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > 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)? That doesn't work because it is stored as a function pointer in the testcases array. And these members all take the two parameters.
