Coping with -Wunused-but-set-variable, first round

Cyril Brulebois kibi at
Mon May 23 03:05:25 PDT 2011

Hi Jeremy,

Jeremy Huddleston <jeremyhu at> (20/05/2011):
> On the whole, this gets my ACK as this will clear up a bit of the
> clang static analysis noise, but some of the changes feel suspicious
> to me.  It feels like some of the dead code was there for a reason,
> and maybe the fix is to *use* the value properly.  In other cases
> where I'm more familiar with the code, it looks clear to me that
> values once were needed and changes in "the right way" meant we no
> longer passed those values along.

I'd appreciate if you could share a least of OK vs. doubtful commits..

> Did you do a 'git blame' to figure out when the dead code was added
> to get some context and make sure that the once-needed values are
> really no longer required?  Obviously things "work" now, but I'd
> hate to come back in 2 years to find out that we acted the wrong way
> on a particular warning.

.. so that I can git blame/investigate the doubtful ones and forget
about the OK-ish ones.

And ACK for the “let's include at least the warnings mentioned by the
compiler” bit; will do that when adding r-b tags if I get some.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the xorg-devel mailing list