At Fri, 5 Jul 2024 10:03:05 -0400 (EDT), Mouse
wrote:
Subject: Re: compilers and unused args in functions
>
> One is
>
> (void)arg;
This is, in my opinion, the one correct way to explicitly and with
intent "use" an otherwise unused variable or parameter.
It is after all idiomatic C when u
On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 10:03:05AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> In...C++, I think it is?, you can do this by declaring the unused arg
> without a name, as in
>
> void fxn(int arg1, int)
> {
> ...
> }
>
> but as far as I know nobody's picked that up in C. (It strikes me as a
> very sensible approach.)
> One of those functions needs a 2nd arg, which means that to keep
> compatible function profiles these days, I need to add the extra arg
> to all of them
Or complicate the call sites, yes.
> In the ancient past I would have just added an extra arg to the one
> that needs it, and the call site, a
Date:Fri, 5 Jul 2024 10:20:23 +0200
From:=?UTF-8?Q?J=C3=B6rg_Sonnenberger?=
Message-ID:
| How do you know which functions take one argument and which two?
They all take two now. That was the question (now answered) - what
should I do with the extra arg in those
On 7/5/24 6:36 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
In sh, I have a whole set of functions that are called
via a function pointer in a data struct
(*p->func)(arg);
One of those functions needs a 2nd arg, which means that
to keep compatible function profiles these days, I need
to add the extra arg t
