[libvirt] [PATCH] Comment out variables/functions that are unused.

[Gary R Hook]

On 2/16/15 3:16 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 08:18:53PM +0000, Gary R Hook wrote:
>>    Avoids complaints when the compiler is configured to "warn-unused".
>>
>>    A few files contain unnecessary code that results in the compiler
>>    erroring out when -Wunused* options are used. Comment out the code
>>    until such time as it is needed.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> src/libxl/libxl_conf.c   | 2 ++
>> tests/virnetsockettest.c | 8 ++++++--
>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/libxl/libxl_conf.c b/src/libxl/libxl_conf.c
>> index 0555b91..f8db4d2 100644
>> --- a/src/libxl/libxl_conf.c
>> +++ b/src/libxl/libxl_conf.c
>> @@ -305,7 +305,9 @@ libxlCapsInitGuests(libxl_ctx *ctx, virCapsPtr caps)
>>     regmatch_t subs[4];
>>     char *saveptr = NULL;
>>     size_t i;
>> +/*
>>     virArch hostarch = caps->host.arch;
>> +*/
>>
>
> How come you see this unused?  It is used about 100 lines later being
> compared to VIR_ARCH_X86_64.

Ugh. You are right, and I can't believe I overlooked this. The problem 
is a bad Ubuntu patch that removes the reference to the variable, 
precipitating the compiler complaint. My apologies. I shall have to fix 
this in our build environment.


>>     struct guest_arch guest_archs[32];
>>     int nr_guest_archs = 0;
>> diff --git a/tests/virnetsockettest.c b/tests/virnetsockettest.c
>> index 5d91f26..988ab43 100644
>> --- a/tests/virnetsockettest.c
>> +++ b/tests/virnetsockettest.c
>> @@ -333,9 +333,10 @@ static int testSocketUNIXAddrs(const void *data
>> ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>>     return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> static int testSocketCommandNormal(const void *data ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>> {
>> -    virNetSocketPtr csock = NULL; /* Client socket */
>> +    virNetSocketPtr csock = NULL; / * Client socket * /
>
> Ugly, guess what happens if someone was about uncomment the function.
> If you used #if 0 around the function it'd be way easier, or I might
> even consider removing that function, BUT...

Now I'm really annoyed. Same problem here: a badly implemented patch 
from Ubuntu (or Debian, but I don't really care which).


Let's leave this at: thank you for making me look just a bit further (as 
I should have to begin with) and thank you very much for your time. I am 
sorry to have wasted it.


-- 
Gary R Hook
Senior Kernel Engineer
NIMBOXX, Inc