X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=UbnbDl46xZ0ROus5IlcjtgoB+QyzapWsrpOLVTgtFbg=;
        b=ArGPVnBnqRFKX0qxCTFLKV7rh+blDAywfckCMgS0oG76rLc6dWioQgXkACXqllnzo9
         GvyFzqOpk8+PN0ZvZBsyzKaUjJowd3JogwsUYYI7QMnAVikZydtpPsj5Nq7/vZeiK+1f
         NgieVgtrn/+AvDLPgTatz3PCeMRaEqivIL9Lzz2D9mGvGnL7b5BN2cBgfsY0iVfoofQi
         iq+DbLG8FpXkeRdXWH8pDRTy+Kw6h6bmRMDXHkc0QP7Tn+HQo4xVLav8fadtWTxopl+O
         9Z6VVCcFPmTYYFea+McVuLLtdv4btGwxZL+XTcXqOvoDuo9li7uc0RFueOavSofgzsmz
         ShAQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.225.35 with SMTP id rh3mr13358207igc.29.1432407009944;
 Sat, 23 May 2015 11:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201505231839.t4NId05i019194@envy.delorie.com>
References: <201505042003 DOT t44K3odg011007 AT delorie DOT com>
	<CAA2C=vChvK1sAzRoqMGkgdCeuNbj--v6bzkcjeaT0T8dEk88Mg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201505231839 DOT t4NId05i019194 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 21:50:09 +0300
Message-ID: <CAA2C=vDmfEs+m=xvYTW=aiC8x8+FrZ4cYLBC1Kgox+qQNxLbuw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP 2.05 beta 1
From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On 5/23/15, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> -        va_arg(argp, int);  /* discard */
>> +        _ulonglong = va_arg(argp, int);  /* discard */
>
> Can we use (void)va_arg(...) instead, so the compiler doesn't ever
> warn about (or try to optimize) an unused value?  Or was the warning
> about an uninitialized variable?
>

The warning was 'computed value not used' or something like it, which
happened with gcc2.95, not with gcc3.3+.

As far as I can follow, that _ulonglong thing exists only for this
purpose, i.e. to discard the value (see the ARG() macro in there).
I _think_ we can instead use (void), but didn't try it myself (I don't
know how it would behave with __builtin_va_arg) and only followed the
existing style.