[PATCH libdrm 7/8] Fix unused, and unused-but-set variables warnings

[Emil Velikov]

On 13/03/15 23:37, Jan Vesely wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 22:56 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 27 February 2015 at 18:07, Jan Vesely <jan.vesely at rutgers.edu> wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Vesely <jan.vesely at rutgers.edu>
>>> ---
>>>  tests/exynos/exynos_fimg2d_test.c | 4 +---
>>>  xf86drm.c                         | 9 ++++++---
>>>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>> ...
>>> @@ -333,7 +336,6 @@ static int drmOpenDevice(dev_t dev, int minor, int type)
>>>         drm_server_info->get_perms(&serv_group, &serv_mode);
>>>         devmode  = serv_mode ? serv_mode : DRM_DEV_MODE;
>>>         devmode &= ~(S_IXUSR|S_IXGRP|S_IXOTH);
>>> -       group = (serv_group >= 0) ? serv_group : DRM_DEV_GID;
>>>      }
>>>
>>>  #if !defined(UDEV)
>>> @@ -354,6 +356,7 @@ static int drmOpenDevice(dev_t dev, int minor, int type)
>>>      }
>>>
>>>      if (drm_server_info) {
>>> +       group = (serv_group >= 0) ? serv_group : DRM_DEV_GID;
>> I think you can leave this back where it was. It doesn't seem to bring
>> anything beneficial.
> 
> "group" variable is now only available #if !defined(UDEV), so  I can;'t
> really move it back without adding a pair of ifdefs,
> moving it here looked nicer than adding another set of #if/#endif.
> 
> I wanted to move the declaration here as well, but I'm not sure how it'd
> play with old/broken compilers that need to be supported.
> 
Got confused in the #ifdef spaghetti. Comment withdrawn.

Thanks
Emil