←back to thread

The C++ standard for the F-35 Fighter Jet [video]

(www.youtube.com)
327 points AareyBaba | 1 comments | 07 Dec 25 18:07 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
time4tea ◴[07 Dec 25 19:31 UTC] No.46184345[source]▶
a = a; // misra

Actual code i have seen with my own eyes. (Not in F-35 code)

Its a way to avoid removing an unused parameter from a method. Unused parameters are disallowed, but this is fine?

I am sceptical that these coding standards make for good code!

replies(11): >>46184442 #>>46184460 #>>46184571 #>>46185232 #>>46185373 #>>46186276 #>>46186377 #>>46186457 #>>46186510 #>>46186705 #>>46189488 #
unwind ◴[07 Dec 25 19:43 UTC] No.46184460[source]▶
For C, the proper/expected/standard way to reference a variable without accessing it is a cast to void:

    (void) a;
I'm sure there are commonly-implemented compiler extensions, but this is the normal/native way and should always work.
replies(1): >>46185753 #
amluto ◴[07 Dec 25 22:12 UTC] No.46185753[source]▶
Not if you use GCC.

https://godbolt.org/z/zYdc9ej88

clang gets this right.

replies(4): >>46185785 #>>46185906 #>>46191931 #>>46203376 #
Am4TIfIsER0ppos ◴[07 Dec 25 22:26 UTC] No.46185906[source]▶
You've defined that function with an attribute saying not to ignore the returned value. Is it right to explicitly silence an explicit warning?
replies(2): >>46186059 #>>46187394 #
1. MathMonkeyMan ◴[07 Dec 25 22:42 UTC] No.46186059{3}[source]▶
Sometimes. For example, you might be setting a non-crucial option on a socket, and if it fails you don't even care to log the fact (maybe the logging would be too expensive), so you just ignore the return value of whatever library is wrapping setsockopt.