From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45816 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P3pFV-0007VO-Fr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 08:07:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1P3p4A-0005xn-Or
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 07:55:19 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10455)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1P3p4A-0005xf-G8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 07:55:18 -0400
Message-ID: <4CADB542.6040803@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:55:46 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] block: avoid a write only variable
References: <AANLkTimZGXaYE7rvVOBFUmdyn4sQVApY7SS3+3vseap-@mail.gmail.com>
	<m3y6aapcn5.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
In-Reply-To: <m3y6aapcn5.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Am 07.10.2010 11:37, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
> Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Compiling with GCC 4.6.0 20100925 produced a warning:
>> /src/qemu/block/qcow2-refcount.c: In function 'update_refcount':
>> /src/qemu/block/qcow2-refcount.c:552:13: error: variable 'dummy' set
>> but not used [-Werror=unused-but-set-variable]
>>
>> Fix by adding a function that does not generate a warning when
>> the result is unused.
> 
> What about a simple "(void)dummy" instead?

I would prefer that, too.

Kevin