On Thursday 09 of February 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 09:20 +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> > Yeah, see commentary around SAL_UNUSED_PARAMETER in sal/inc/sal/types.h,
> > can replace it with that if necessary.
>
> If we can choose - why do we add such over-long macros
On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 09:20 +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> Yeah, see commentary around SAL_UNUSED_PARAMETER in sal/inc/sal/types.h,
> can replace it with that if necessary.
If we can choose - why do we add such over-long macros ? :-)
Everyone is still suffering daily from:
On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 10:04 +0200, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> Sure, it silences warnings from gcc. But MSVC still warns. We do want
> to eventually be warning-free with MSVC, too, don't we? Don't we
> already have a convention how to handle unused parameters in C++ code,
> i.e. comment their name out?
In pq_common.hxx there is:
#ifdef UNUSED
#elif defined(__GNUC__)
# define UNUSED(x) UNUSED_ ## x __attribute__((unused))
#elif defined(__LCLINT__)
# define UNUSED(x) /*@unused@*/ x
#else
# define UNUSED(x) x
#endif
and then UNUSED is used like this (just in two places (so far, I guess
the intent
