- 2.6.2 - security.h - compiler cleanups
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 - 2.6.2 - security.h - compiler cleanups
Well, it's probably useless, but I like clean compiles.
This "large" patch eliminates a bunch of "parameter defined but not used" warnings in the kernel. The problems surround the stub functions in security.h that haven't been coded yet.
Enjoy...
Signature · 2 lines
Ron Gage - LPIC1, MCP, A+, Net+ Pontiac, Michigan
include/linux/security.h +256 -24
@@ -1908,22 +1908,30 @@static inline int security_acct (struct file *file) { + file = file;return 0 ; }static inline int security_sysctl (ctl_table * table,int op) { + table = table; + op = op;return 0 ; }static inline int security_quotactl (int cmds,int type,int id,struct super_block * sb) { + cmds = cmds; + type = type; + id = id; + sb = sb;return 0 ; }static inline int security_quota_on (struct file * file) { + file = file;return 0 ; }
@@ -1939,11 +1947,12 @@static inline int security_bprm_alloc (struct linux_binprm *bprm) { + bprm = bprm;return 0 ; }static inline void security_bprm_free (struct linux_binprm *bprm) -{ } +{ bprm = bprm; }static inline void security_bprm_compute_creds (struct linux_binprm *bprm) {
@@ -1957,6 +1966,7 @@static inline int security_bprm_check (struct linux_binprm *bprm) { + bprm = bprm;return 0 ; }
@@ -1967,19 +1977,22 @@static inline int security_sb_alloc (struct super_block *sb) { + sb = sb;return 0 ; }static inline void security_sb_free (struct super_block *sb) -{ } +{ sb = sb; }static inline int security_sb_kern_mount (struct super_block *sb) { + sb = sb;return 0 ; }static inline int security_sb_statfs (struct super_block *sb) { + sb = sb;return 0 ; }
@@ -1987,82 +2000,102 @@ char *type, unsigned long flags, void *data) { + dev_name = dev_name; + type = type; + flags = flags; + nd = nd; + data = data;return 0 ; }static inline int security_sb_check_sb (struct vfsmount *mnt,struct nameidata *nd) { + mnt = mnt; + nd = nd;return 0 ; }static inline int security_sb_umount (struct vfsmount *mnt,int flags) { + mnt = mnt; + flags = flags;return 0 ; }static inline void security_sb_umount_close (struct vfsmount *mnt) -{ } +{ mnt = mnt; }static inline void security_sb_umount_busy (struct vfsmount *mnt) -{ } +{ mnt = mnt; }static inline void security_sb_post_remount (struct vfsmount *mnt,unsigned long flags,void *data) -{ } +{ mnt = mnt; flags = flags; data = data; }static inline void security_sb_post_mountroot (void ) { }static inline void security_sb_post_addmount (struct vfsmount *mnt,struct nameidata *mountpoint_nd) -{ } +{ mnt = mnt; mountpoint_nd = mountpoint_nd; }static inline int security_sb_pivotroot (struct nameidata *old_nd,struct nameidata *new_nd) { + old_nd = old_nd; + new_nd = new_nd;return 0 ; }static inline void security_sb_post_pivotroot (struct nameidata *old_nd,struct nameidata *new_nd) -{ } +{ old_nd = old_nd; new_nd = new_nd; }static inline int security_inode_alloc (struct inode *inode) { + inode = inode;return 0 ; }static inline void security_inode_free (struct inode *inode) -{ } +{ inode = inode; }static inline int security_inode_create (struct inode *dir,struct dentry *dentry,int mode) { + dir = dir; + dentry = dentry; + mode = mode;return 0 ; }static inline void security_inode_post_create (struct inode *dir,struct dentry *dentry,int mode) -{ } +{ dir = dir; dentry = dentry; mode = mode; }static inline int security_inode_link (struct dentry *old_dentry,struct inode *dir,struct dentry *new_dentry) { + old_dentry = old_dentry; + dir = dir; + new_dentry = new_dentry;return 0 ; }static inline void security_inode_post_link (struct dentry *old_dentry,struct inode *dir,struct dentry *new_dentry) -{ } +{ old_dentry = old_dentry; dir = dir; new_dentry = new_dentry; }static inline int security_inode_unlink (struct inode *dir,struct dentry *dentry) { + dir = dir; + dentry = dentry;return 0 ; }
@@ -2070,29 +2103,37 @@struct dentry *dentry, const char *old_name) { + dir = dir; + dentry = dentry; + old_name = old_name;return 0 ; }static inline void security_inode_post_symlink (struct inode *dir,struct dentry *dentry,const char *old_name) -{ } +{ dir = dir; dentry = dentry; old_name = old_name; }static inline int security_inode_mkdir (struct inode *dir,struct dentry *dentry,int mode) { + dir = dir; + dentry = dentry; + mode = mode;return 0 ; }static inline void security_inode_post_mkdir (struct inode *dir,struct dentry *dentry,int mode) -{ } +{ dir = dir; dentry = dentry; mode = mode; }static inline int security_inode_rmdir (struct inode *dir,struct dentry *dentry) { + dir = dir; + dentry = dentry;return 0 ; }
@@ -2100,19 +2141,27 @@struct dentry *dentry, int mode, dev_t dev) { + dir = dir; + dentry = dentry; + mode = mode; + dev = dev;return 0 ; }static inline void security_inode_post_mknod (struct inode *dir,struct dentry *dentry,int mode,dev_t dev) -{ } +{ dir = dir; dentry = dentry; mode = mode; dev = dev; }static inline int security_inode_rename (struct inode *old_dir,struct dentry *old_dentry,struct inode *new_dir,struct dentry *new_dentry) { + old_dir = old_dir; + old_dentry = old_dentry; + new_dir = new_dir; + new_dentry = new_dentry;return 0 ; }
@@ -2120,39 +2169,54 @@struct dentry *old_dentry, struct inode *new_dir, struct dentry *new_dentry) -{ } +{ + old_dir = old_dir; + old_dentry = old_dentry; + new_dir = new_dir; + new_dentry = new_dentry; +}static inline int security_inode_readlink (struct dentry *dentry) { + dentry = dentry;return 0 ; }static inline int security_inode_follow_link (struct dentry *dentry,struct nameidata *nd) { + dentry = dentry; + nd = nd;return 0 ; }static inline int security_inode_permission (struct inode *inode,int mask,struct nameidata *nd) { + inode = inode; + mask = mask; + nd = nd;return 0 ; }static inline int security_inode_setattr (struct dentry *dentry,struct iattr *attr) { + dentry = dentry; + attr = attr;return 0 ; }static inline int security_inode_getattr (struct vfsmount *mnt,struct dentry *dentry) { + mnt = mnt; + dentry = dentry;return 0 ; }static inline void security_inode_delete (struct inode *inode) -{ } +{ inode = inode; }static inline int security_inode_setxattr (struct dentry *dentry,char *name,void *value,size_t size,int flags)
@@ -2162,15 +2226,24 @@static inline void security_inode_post_setxattr (struct dentry *dentry,char *name,void *value,size_t size,int flags) -{ } +{ + dentry = dentry; + name = name; + value = value; + size = size; + flags = flags; +}static inline int security_inode_getxattr (struct dentry *dentry,char *name) { + dentry = dentry; + name = name;return 0 ; }static inline int security_inode_listxattr (struct dentry *dentry) { + dentry = dentry;return 0 ; }
@@ -2181,63 +2254,91 @@static inline int security_inode_getsecurity (struct dentry *dentry,const char *name,void *buffer,size_t size) { + dentry = dentry; + name = name; + buffer = buffer; + size = size;return -EOPNOTSUPP ; }static inline int security_inode_setsecurity (struct dentry *dentry,const char *name,const void *value,size_t size,int flags) { + dentry = dentry; + name = name; + value = value; + size = size; + flags = flags;return -EOPNOTSUPP ; }static inline int security_inode_listsecurity (struct dentry *dentry,char *buffer) { + dentry = dentry; + buffer = buffer;return 0 ; }static inline int security_file_permission (struct file *file,int mask) { + file = file; + mask = mask;return 0 ; }static inline int security_file_alloc (struct file *file) { + file = file;return 0 ; }static inline void security_file_free (struct file *file) -{ } +{ file = file; }static inline int security_file_ioctl (struct file *file,unsigned int cmd,unsigned long arg) { + file = file; + cmd = cmd; + arg = arg;return 0 ; }static inline int security_file_mmap (struct file *file,unsigned long prot,unsigned long flags) { + file = file; + prot = prot; + flags = flags;return 0 ; }static inline int security_file_mprotect (struct vm_area_struct *vma,unsigned long prot) { + vma = vma; + prot = prot;return 0 ; }static inline int security_file_lock (struct file *file,unsigned int cmd) { + file = file; + cmd = cmd;return 0 ; }static inline int security_file_fcntl (struct file *file,unsigned int cmd,unsigned long arg) { + file = file; + cmd = cmd; + arg = arg;return 0 ; }static inline int security_file_set_fowner (struct file *file) { + file = file;return 0 ; }
@@ -2245,30 +2346,41 @@struct fown_struct *fown, int fd, int reason) { + tsk = tsk; + fown = fown; + fd = fd; + reason = reason;return 0 ; }static inline int security_file_receive (struct file *file) { + file = file;return 0 ; }static inline int security_task_create (unsigned long clone_flags) { + clone_flags = clone_flags;return 0 ; }static inline int security_task_alloc (struct task_struct *p) { + p = p;return 0 ; }static inline void security_task_free (struct task_struct *p) -{ } +{ p = p; }static inline int security_task_setuid (uid_t id0,uid_t id1,uid_t id2,int flags) { + id0 = id0; + id1 = id1; + id2 = id2; + flags = flags;return 0 ; }
@@ -2281,37 +2393,51 @@static inline int security_task_setgid (gid_t id0,gid_t id1,gid_t id2,int flags) { + id0 = id0; + id1 = id1; + id2 = id2; + flags = flags;return 0 ; }static inline int security_task_setpgid (struct task_struct *p,pid_t pgid) { + p = p; + pgid = pgid;return 0 ; }static inline int security_task_getpgid (struct task_struct *p) { + p = p;return 0 ; }static inline int security_task_getsid (struct task_struct *p) { + p = p;return 0 ; }static inline int security_task_setgroups (int gidsetsize,gid_t *grouplist) { + gidsetsize = gidsetsize; + grouplist = grouplist;return 0 ; }static inline int security_task_setnice (struct task_struct *p,int nice) { + p = p; + nice = nice;return 0 ; }static inline int security_task_setrlimit (unsigned int resource,struct rlimit *new_rlim) { + resource = resource; + new_rlim = new_rlim;return 0 ; }
@@ -2319,22 +2445,30 @@int policy, struct sched_param *lp) { + p = p; + policy = policy; + lp = lp;return 0 ; }static inline int security_task_getscheduler (struct task_struct *p) { + p = p;return 0 ; }static inline int security_task_kill (struct task_struct *p,struct siginfo *info,int sig) { + p = p; + info = info; + sig = sig;return 0 ; }static inline int security_task_wait (struct task_struct *p) { + p = p;return 0 ; }
@@ -2343,6 +2477,11 @@unsigned long arg4, unsigned long arg5) { + option = option; + arg2 = arg2; + arg3 = arg3; + arg4 = arg4; + arg5 = arg5;return 0 ; }
@@ -2352,44 +2491,55 @@ }static inline void security_task_to_inode (struct task_struct *p,struct inode *inode) -{ } +{ p = p; inode = inode; }static inline int security_ipc_permission (struct kern_ipc_perm *ipcp,short flag) { + ipcp = ipcp; + flag = flag;return 0 ; }static inline int security_msg_msg_alloc (struct msg_msg * msg) { + msg = msg;return 0 ; }static inline void security_msg_msg_free (struct msg_msg * msg) -{ } +{ msg = msg; }static inline int security_msg_queue_alloc (struct msg_queue *msq) { + msq = msq;return 0 ; }static inline void security_msg_queue_free (struct msg_queue *msq) -{ } +{ msq = msq; }static inline int security_msg_queue_associate (struct msg_queue * msq,int msqflg) { + msq = msq; + msqflg = msqflg;return 0 ; }static inline int security_msg_queue_msgctl (struct msg_queue * msq,int cmd) { + msq = msq; + cmd = cmd;return 0 ; }static inline int security_msg_queue_msgsnd (struct msg_queue * msq,struct msg_msg * msg,int msqflg) { + msq = msq; + msg = msg; + msqflg = msqflg;return 0 ; }
@@ -2398,49 +2548,68 @@struct task_struct * target, long type, int mode) { + msq = msq; + msg = msg; + target = target; + type = type; + mode = mode;return 0 ; }static inline int security_shm_alloc (struct shmid_kernel *shp) { + shp = shp;return 0 ; }static inline void security_shm_free (struct shmid_kernel *shp) -{ } +{ shp = shp; } +static inline int security_shm_associate (struct shmid_kernel * shp,int shmflg) { + shp = shp; + shmflg = shmflg;return 0 ; }static inline int security_shm_shmctl (struct shmid_kernel * shp,int cmd) { + shp = shp; + cmd = cmd;return 0 ; }static inline int security_shm_shmat (struct shmid_kernel * shp,char __user *shmaddr,int shmflg) { + shp = shp; + shmaddr = shmaddr; + shmflg = shmflg;return 0 ; }static inline int security_sem_alloc (struct sem_array *sma) { + sma = sma;return 0 ; }static inline void security_sem_free (struct sem_array *sma) -{ } +{ sma = sma; }static inline int security_sem_associate (struct sem_array * sma,int semflg) { + sma = sma; + semflg = semflg;return 0 ; }static inline int security_sem_semctl (struct sem_array * sma,int cmd) { + sma = sma; + cmd = cmd;return 0 ; }
@@ -2448,19 +2617,31 @@ struct sembuf * sops, unsigned nsops, int alter) { + sma = sma; + sops = sops; + nsops = nsops; + alter = alter;return 0 ; }static inline void security_d_instantiate (struct dentry *dentry,struct inode *inode) -{ } +{ dentry = dentry; inode = inode; }static inline int security_getprocattr (struct task_struct *p,char *name,void *value,size_t size) { + p = p; + name = name; + value = value; + size = size;return -EINVAL ; }static inline int security_setprocattr (struct task_struct *p,char *name,void *value,size_t size) { + p = p; + name = name; + value = value; + size = size;return -EINVAL ; }
@@ -2606,17 +2787,25 @@struct socket * other, struct sock * newsk) { + sock = sock; + other = other; + newsk = newsk;return 0 ; }static inline int security_unix_may_send (struct socket * sock,struct socket * other) { + sock = sock; + other = other;return 0 ; }static inline int security_socket_create (int family,int type,int protocol) { + family = family; + type = type; + protocol = protocol;return 0 ; }
@@ -2625,12 +2814,19 @@int type, int protocol) { + sock = sock; + family = family; + type = type; + protocol = protocol; }static inline int security_socket_bind (struct socket * sock,struct sockaddr * address,int addrlen) { + sock = sock; + address = address; + addrlen = addrlen;return 0 ; }
@@ -2638,28 +2834,40 @@struct sockaddr * address, int addrlen) { + sock = sock; + address = address; + addrlen = addrlen;return 0 ; }static inline int security_socket_listen (struct socket * sock,int backlog) { + sock = sock; + backlog = backlog;return 0 ; }static inline int security_socket_accept (struct socket * sock,struct socket * newsock) { + sock = sock; + newsock = newsock;return 0 ; }static inline void security_socket_post_accept (struct socket * sock,struct socket * newsock) { + sock = sock; + newsock = newsock; }static inline int security_socket_sendmsg (struct socket * sock,struct msghdr * msg,int size) { + sock = sock; + msg = msg; + size = size;return 0 ; }
@@ -2667,54 +2875,78 @@ struct msghdr * msg, int size, int flags) { + sock = sock; + msg = msg; + size = size; + flags = flags;return 0 ; }static inline int security_socket_getsockname (struct socket * sock) { + sock = sock;return 0 ; }static inline int security_socket_getpeername (struct socket * sock) { + sock = sock;return 0 ; }static inline int security_socket_getsockopt (struct socket * sock,int level,int optname) { + sock = sock; + level = level; + optname = optname;return 0 ; }static inline int security_socket_setsockopt (struct socket * sock,int level,int optname) { + sock = sock; + level = level; + optname = optname;return 0 ; }static inline int security_socket_shutdown (struct socket * sock,int how) { + sock = sock; + how = how;return 0 ; }static inline int security_sock_rcv_skb (struct sock * sk,struct sk_buff * skb) { + sk = sk; + skb = skb;return 0 ; }static inline int security_socket_getpeersec (struct socket *sock,char __user *optval,int __user *optlen,unsigned len) { + sock = sock; + optval = optval; + optlen = optlen; + len = len;return -ENOPROTOOPT ; }static inline int security_sk_alloc (struct sock *sk,int family,int priority) { + sk = sk; + family = family; + priority = priority;return 0 ; }static inline void security_sk_free (struct sock *sk) { + sk = sk; }#endif /* CONFIG_SECURITY_NETWORK */
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
Quoted 5 lines · Ron Gage
Well, it's probably useless, but I like clean compiles.
This "large" patch eliminates a bunch of "parameter defined but not used" warnings in the kernel. The problems surround the stub functions in
security.hthat haven't been coded yet.
What compiler version are you using that you see these "warnings"? I don't see them here using 3.3.2.
And I really don't think that any kernel developer will accept these patches, I know I sure will not.
Oh yeah, isn't there a gcc __attribute__ that will also turn off the warning?
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
Quoted 9 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 5 lines · Ron Gage
Well, it's probably useless, but I like clean compiles.
This "large" patch eliminates a bunch of "parameter defined but not used" warnings in the kernel. The problems surround the stub functions in
security.hthat haven't been coded yet.What compiler version are you using that you see these "warnings"? I don't see them here using 3.3.2.
I am using gcc 3.2.2 here.
Per the instructions from the janitors to-do list....
- Signedness issues. We have _lots_ of these.
Adding a -W to the kernel build line shows them. We have lots of code paths that are not executed because comparisons <0 on an unsigned int always evaluates to true.
Doing this also exposes a LOT of unused parameter/unused variable warnings - a LOT in this case means that "make 2>../errors" generated a 5.8 meg file. I though it would appropriate to clean up ALL warnings, not just the signedness problems.
Quoted 4 lines
And I really don't think that any kernel developer will accept these patches, I know I sure will not.
Well, I guess I shouldn't have presumed to fix all the warnings. My bad... Sorry about that...
Signature · 7 lines
Ron Gage - LPIC1, MCP, A+, Net+ Pontiac, Michigan _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
Quoted 3 lines · Ron Gage
Well, I guess I shouldn't have presumed to fix all the warnings. My bad... Sorry about that...
Just fix the warnings that make sense :)
This one doesn't really...
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
Quoted 5 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 2 lines · Ron Gage
Well, I guess I shouldn't have presumed to fix all the warnings. My bad... Sorry about that...
Just fix the warnings that make sense :)
To quote the (1970's version) Cylons:
"By Your Command..."
Signature · 7 lines
Ron Gage - LPIC1, MCP, A+, Net+ Pontiac, Michigan _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
Quoted 8 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 3 lines · Ron Gage
Well, I guess I shouldn't have presumed to fix all the warnings. My bad... Sorry about that...
Just fix the warnings that make sense :)
This one doesn't really...
I think there's a case for fixing all the *headers* that don't compile cleanly with -W. That way people can enable -W for their own drivers without being flooded with errors that are nothing to do with them.
The patches that Ron submitted are one way to fix it, but I've always hated the foo = foo "feature" of C, ever since I inadvertently found out about it (that would be a couple of years ago). We can use gcc extensions to stop warning about it:
static int foo(int x, int y __attribute__((unused)))
{
return x;
}Obviously we wouldn't want to write that out because it's even more ugly, but with a suitable define, we could do something like:
static int foo(int x, unused(int y))
or
static int foo(int x, int y __unused)
What do you think?
... hmm, the documentation is unclear, but:
static int foo(int x, int __unused y)
also doesn't warn, and that's the same syntax as __user, which gives me the warm fuzzies.
Signature · 10 lines
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
Quoted 4 lines · Matthew Wilcox
static int
foo(int x, int __unused y)also doesn't warn, and that's the same syntax as
__user, which gives me the warm fuzzies.
This is much more sane and nice.
Can we get a warning from the compiler if we actually use a variable marked __unused?
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
Quoted 10 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 4 lines · Matthew Wilcox
static int
foo(int x, int __unused y)also doesn't warn, and that's the same syntax as
__user, which gives me the warm fuzzies.This is much more sane and nice.
Can we get a warning from the compiler if we actually use a variable marked
__unused?
It doesn't warn in that case.
static int foo(int x, int __attribute__((unused)) y)
{
return x + y;
}Possibly we should call it __optional instead of __unused?
Signature · 10 lines
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
Quoted 8 lines · Matthew Wilcox
It doesn't warn in that case.
static int
foo(int x, int __attribute__((unused)) y){ return x + y; }Possibly we should call it
__optionalinstead of__unused?
What about finding a gcc switch to turn that silly warning off instead? It's quite natural at least for method vectors to have unused arguments. Dito for all kinds of state machines implemented as array of function pointers, etc...
Basically everywhere where we implement the OO Virtual baseclass paradigm.
Quoted 12 lines
Signature · 11 lines
-- "Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
---end quoted text---
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
Quoted 8 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Quoted 7 lines · Matthew Wilcox
It doesn't warn in that case.
static int
foo(int x, int __attribute__((unused)) y){ return x + y; }
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
Possibly we should call it
__optionalinstead of__unused?What about finding a gcc switch to turn that silly warning off instead? It's quite natural at least for method vectors to have unused arguments. Dito for all kinds of state machines implemented as array of function pointers, etc...
Basically everywhere where we implement the OO Virtual baseclass paradigm.
Sure, it's -Wno-unused. However, that implies it's a worthless warning, and I don't think that's true. Last time I looked at these warnings, there were some places that could lose an argument entirely, but I haven't looked in ~3 years.
I don't think it's an unreasonable burden to add __optional to the unused arguments of a method call anyway. I prefer the plan9 C approach of simply not naming them (ie
static void my_write_inode(struct inode *inode, int)
{
...
}But we're stuck with ISO C where you can't do that. Is it really that ugly to write
static void my_write_inode(struct inode *inode, int __optional wait)
{
...
}Signature · 10 lines
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
Quoted 13 lines · Matthew Wilcox
Quoted 7 lines
...
What about finding a gcc switch to turn that silly warning off instead? It's quite natural at least for method vectors to have unused arguments. Dito for all kinds of state machines implemented as array of function pointers, etc...Basically everywhere where we implement the OO Virtual baseclass paradigm.
Sure, it's -Wno-unused. However, that implies it's a worthless warning, and I don't think that's true. Last time I looked at these warnings, there were some places that could lose an argument entirely, but I haven't looked in ~3 years.
Quoted 4 lines
I don't think it's an unreasonable burden to add
__optionalto the unused arguments of a method call anyway. I prefer the plan9 C approach of simply not naming them (ie
...
You said you checked such cases some time ago.
With your __optional suggestion, most likely _all_ such unused parameters will be marked __optional without a deeper checking by some Janitors. This way, the effect would be similar to simply using -Wno-unused when using -W .
IMHO a better approach than silenting all -W warnings would be to add selected warning options to the default built and clean the code for them, but completely silenting a -W compile isn't worth the effort. E.g. some time ago I checked -Wundef. Silenting -Wundef would be possible although it requires some work (but I gave up after looking at XFS).
cu
Adrian
Signature · 9 lines
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors