Remove some variables which were set but not used.

gcc (at least as of version 4.6.0) is kind enough to point these out to us,
(when given -Wunused-but-set-variable explicitly or implicitly via -Wunused
or -Wall).

One of these cases was a legitimately unused variable. Two were simply
variables (named ignored) we were assigning only to squelch a warning about
unused function return values. I don't seem to be getting those warnings
even without setting the ignored variable. And the gcc docs. say that the
correct way to squelch that warning is with a cast to (void) anyway.
This commit is contained in:
Carl Worth 2011-05-11 12:34:13 -07:00
parent 7c58326d62
commit 2f3a76c569
3 changed files with 2 additions and 7 deletions

View file

@ -213,7 +213,6 @@ _notmuch_message_create_for_message_id (notmuch_database_t *notmuch,
{
notmuch_message_t *message;
Xapian::Document doc;
Xapian::WritableDatabase *db;
unsigned int doc_id;
char *term;
@ -233,7 +232,6 @@ _notmuch_message_create_for_message_id (notmuch_database_t *notmuch,
if (notmuch->mode == NOTMUCH_DATABASE_MODE_READ_ONLY)
INTERNAL_ERROR ("Failure to ensure database is writable.");
db = static_cast<Xapian::WritableDatabase *> (notmuch->xapian_db);
try {
doc.add_term (term, 0);
talloc_free (term);

View file

@ -64,10 +64,9 @@ static volatile sig_atomic_t interrupted;
static void
handle_sigint (unused (int sig))
{
ssize_t ignored;
static char msg[] = "Stopping... \n";
ignored = write(2, msg, sizeof(msg)-1);
write(2, msg, sizeof(msg)-1);
interrupted = 1;
}

View file

@ -25,10 +25,8 @@ static volatile sig_atomic_t interrupted;
static void
handle_sigint (unused (int sig))
{
ssize_t ignored;
static char msg[] = "Stopping... \n";
ignored = write(2, msg, sizeof(msg)-1);
write(2, msg, sizeof(msg)-1);
interrupted = 1;
}