On 3 November 2014 14:27, Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> wrote: > I usually reluctant to add these unused attributes and shut up other > warnings by force, because with time this cruft does not help, and > more and more code becomes "forgotten". If it is not needed for > windows, why add it?
You could equally ask why we've marked the function "inline" for both, when it's currently only required for non-win32 and only needed because it silences the warning on gcc. > Hence the "untested" warning by me... So the test can be rewritten > like this: > > #elif defined(USE_STATIC_CODE_GEN_BUFFER) || !defined(USE_MMAP) > > (untested again! ;) and everything should be well without adding > extra attributes... Which one is better is, well, a matter of > personal taste really.. :) Yeah, that's the "close coupling between warning-suppressing and the implementation of a different bit of the code" approach. As you say, personal taste; I've applied my r-by tag to the other one ;-) -- PMM
