[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] tiny bit of lint

From: Christian Jullien
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] tiny bit of lint
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:11:01 +0200

Hi Larry,

I see your efforts to make tcc more happy when compiled with clang.

 For printf("<- %s (%d symbol%s)\n", buf, sym_count, "s"[sym_count < 2]);

It's even better if you use:

printf("<- %s (%d symbol%s)\n", buf, sym_count, ((sym_count > 1) ? "s" :

-----Original Message-----
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:address@hidden
On Behalf Of Larry Doolittle
Sent: lundi 8 mai 2017 18:48
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] tiny bit of lint

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

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

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

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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]