2011/7/9 Eric Blake <eblake(a)redhat.com>:
The compiler might optimize based on our declaration that something
is unused.
Can this actually happen? The unused marker only says that something
_might_ be unused. I don't think that a compiler can optimize
something based on this when it cannot actually prove that it is
really unused.
Putting that declaration in the header risks getting
out of sync with the actual implementation, so it belongs better
only in the .c files. We were mostly compliant, and a new syntax
check will help us in the future.
This is a valid point.
* cfg.mk (sc_avoic_attribute_unused_in_header): New syntax check.
* src/nodeinfo.h (nodeGetCPUStats, nodeGetMemoryStats): Delete
attribute already present in .c file.
* src/qemu/qemu_domain.h (qemuDomainEventFlush): Likewise.
* src/util/virterror_internal.h (virReportErrorHelper): Parameters
are actually used by .c file.
* src/xenxs/xen_sxpr.h (xenFormatSxprDisk): Adjust prototype.
* src/xenxs/xen_sxpr.c (xenFormatSxprDisk): Delete unused argument.
(xenFormatSxpr): Adjust caller.
* src/xen/xend_internal.c (xenDaemonAttachDeviceFlags)
(xenDaemonUpdateDeviceFlags): Likewise.
Suggested by Daniel Veillard.
---
As suggested here:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-July/msg00501.html
cfg.mk | 8 ++++++++
src/nodeinfo.h | 4 ++--
src/qemu/qemu_domain.h | 2 +-
src/util/virterror_internal.h | 8 ++++----
src/xen/xend_internal.c | 12 +++++-------
src/xenxs/xen_sxpr.c | 5 ++---
src/xenxs/xen_sxpr.h | 3 +--
7 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
ACK.
--
Matthias Bolte
http://photron.blogspot.com