From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#61730: 30.0.50; Compiler warnings for delq and delete Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 23:15:56 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87ilfsisje.fsf@web.de> <670D8E4A-333D-4E2D-97CC-86728965989D@gmail.com> <83a613np4p.fsf@gnu.org> <87fsavf688.fsf@web.de> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="21580"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: eliz@gnu.org, 61730@debbugs.gnu.org, mattias.engdegard@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 25 05:17:16 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pVlzo-0005PK-4U for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2023 05:17:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVlzd-0005ZV-Rn; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 23:17:05 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVlza-0005Yx-No for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 23:17:03 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVlza-0006tV-5R for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 23:17:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVlzZ-0003jB-OU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 23:17:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Richard Stallman Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2023 04:17:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 61730 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 61730-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B61730.167729856414257 (code B ref 61730); Sat, 25 Feb 2023 04:17:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 61730) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Feb 2023 04:16:04 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38759 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVlyd-0003ht-NK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 23:16:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59192) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVlyc-0003hC-3i for 61730@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 23:16:02 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVlyW-0006Z8-MC; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 23:15:56 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=Date:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: mime-version; bh=V8eW5AXNDJyqRgvYBZPiZewEWVeRJhClFDJrjqHE3AA=; b=YV+umWNlWdcL OOam14DHcq8xpZQQUYzAUpsK49IEbj8qgWJR1/JgT+D5/FQSsiMOxdO0XXRlqw1v6r4hXzaesfKf0 xTn0dg0vzc1y1/C17TDUb9LAyw7GMkeOZwBqdj4Qiyrc4qXtyhK6YV3GNkL0W5ArWqFy5CkzGeVTh cyv8aYbPe6cL2e1ttN1DDaLdHWdbrM6Is0xI7rY48egy4ULVsR1q3jDIrCfCBsuo7kHXnLbSQrrMM Yoq/Q0UprO2d1XzFNgaCLaoV4XN63kYvGd+W6sBY2b2YpdR5/m7rq7TUApc43dcFZvZ6fFwlyRKMO 6OMTIkkaZQE0J4KdlrZ6fQ==; Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVlyW-0004QZ-Av; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 23:15:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87fsavf688.fsf@web.de> (message from Michael Heerdegen on Fri, 24 Feb 2023 16:11:51 +0100) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:256677 Archived-At: > He mentioned only one: "when you know that the elements to be deleted > cannot include the first element", and that's the only one I know. Are > there more? > Even that case is a burden to the reader and the maintainer, because one > has to think about and verify that this condition is fulfilled. When someone wrote code like that, either person thought about the question and determined the return value could be ignored, or person made a mistake and introduced a bug. How often does each of those two happen? What fraction of these unused return values are real possible bugs? People won't mind a rare spurious warning if the warning message usually indicates a real problem. But if it is the opposite way, people will see the warning as annoying bureaucracy and resent it. Can we come up with a conventional way to indicate you know you're ignoring the return value and you've concluded it is safe? For instance, using it as the arg of `ignore'? -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)