grischka - On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 07:27:08PM +0200, grischka wrote: > Larry Doolittle wrote: > >I committed (to mob) one patch that should count as progress. > > Remove some unused-parameter lint > > In my book that counts as visual clutter with no practical benefit. > The opposite of "tinycc avoids the unnecessary". Suggesting particular > care that feels alien in contrast to what the code really cares about.
I respect that point of view. Yes, the code is a bit more cluttered. In this case I added 11 lines of cruft to 9841 existing lines of code. Also note that this is source-only cruft, with no effect on the resulting binary. The potential upside, that I do value, is that (with a bit more work like this) "we" get to turn on -Wextra for general development. That _should_ lead to _real_ flaws getting caught earlier in the development cycle. If unused parameters in general are considered OK in this code base, CFLAGS could be set to -Wextra -Wno-unused-argument. The trick there would be in the configure/Makefile step, adding that flag set only on compatible compilers. I'll hold off doing anything more like this until and unless I hear a net positive from the mailing list. - Larry _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
