On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:11 PM Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: > > All, > > I've seen discussions come up several times lately about whether you should > use MAYBE_UNUSED or UNUSED in what scenario and why do we have two of them > anyway. That got me thinking a bit. Maybe what we actually want instead of > MAYBE_UNUSED is something like this: > > #ifdef NDEBUG > #define ASSERTED UNUSED > #else > #define ASSERTED > #endif > > That way, if you only need a parameter for asserts, you can declare it > ASSERTED and it won't warn in release builds will still throw a warning if > you do a debug build which doesn't use it. Of course, there are other times > when something is validly MAYBE_UNUSED such as auto-generated code or the > genX code we use on Intel. However, this provides additional meaning and > means the compiler warnings are still useful even after you've relegated a > value to assert-only. > > Thoughts? I'm also open to a better name; that's the best I could do in 5 > minutes.
I think that's going in the wrong direction - if anything I think that having both UNUSED and MAYBE_UNUSED is redundant and feel that just UNUSED would be fine. __attribute__((unused)) doesn't mean "strictly not used", it means "don't warn if this isn't used". > > --Jason > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
