On (03/02/14 10:11), Sumit Bose wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:19:49AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (02/02/14 11:16), Noam Meltzer wrote:
> >> > + return 0;
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > +static int sss_nfs_princ_to_ids(char *secname, char *princ, uid_t
*uid,
> >> > + gid_t *gid, extra_mapping_params
**ex)
> >> > +{
> >> > + (void)secname;
> >> > + (void)princ;
> >> > + (void)uid;
> >> > + (void)gid;
> >> > + (void)ex;
> >>
> >> Why these (void)s ?
> >>
> >Best practice, IMHO. In case someone decided to enable "
> >-Wunused-parameter" in the compile flags.
> >(I prefer that over using gcc's __attribute__(unused) )
> >
>
> +1
>
> I have almost ready patches forr sssd to enable -Wunused-parameter
> and I also prefer casting to void, but I also add a comment e.g.
>
> sss_child_krb5_trace_cb(krb5_context context,
> const krb5_trace_info *info, void *data)
> {
> (void) context; /* unused */
> (void) data; /* unused */
I like this, but maybe a macro like MARK_AS_UNUSED or similar would make
the purpose more clear and might help to avoid questions like to one
above?
But macro will need to be in separate header file, because we will need to use
it also in the client code. This is a reason why I prefer to use comment and to
avoid using macro. But separate header file can be acceptable solution.
LS