Unused parameters in C are worse than in Rust
Unused parameters in C are worse than in Rust
Posted Feb 11, 2025 15:18 UTC (Tue) by farnz (subscriber, #17727)In reply to: Unused parameters in C are easy by alx.manpages
Parent article: Maintainer opinions on Rust-for-Linux
I'm sorry, you've confused me; why is Rust's use of _ignored_cpu_mask "no documentation name either"? All names starting with an underscore are flagged as explicitly unused, not just the underscore on its own. And the C things so far are all much more work than just adding an `_` to the name to indicate that it's currently deliberately unused - my contention is that if you don't make it really simple, people will prefer to turn off the entire warning rather than use the convention for unused parameters.
Posted Feb 11, 2025 15:30 UTC (Tue)
by alx.manpages (subscriber, #145117)
[Link]
Ahh, sorry, I missed that. How about this?
#define _ [[maybe_unused]]
int
The _() function already exists (for internationalization of strings), which is why I wouldn't shadow it with this macro, but if you don't use _(), when you could define the undescore to be [[maybe_unused]]. Or you could find another name that serves you.
Posted Feb 11, 2025 21:33 UTC (Tue)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Unused parameters in C are worse than in Rust
> All names starting with an underscore are flagged as explicitly unused, not just the underscore on its own.
main(_ int argc, char *argv[])
{...}
Unused parameters in C are worse than in Rust