2011/7/9 Eric Blake <eblake@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