unused var gcpro1

[Stefan Monnier]

I got tired of those warnings and came up with the patch below.
It shouldn't make any difference to the code generated (even
with -O0 I can't think of any way the compiler could generate code
for those non-actions).

But since it's a very minor issue, I'd like to know if people think
it's safe enough.  If it's not 100% safe, it's probably not worth installing.

Also, it might cause other compilers to spit out other warnings,
since it's a really silly kind of code.


        Stefan


*** lisp.h      2001/11/19 06:46:01     1.398
--- lisp.h      2001/11/27 00:36:56
******************************
*** 1813,1824 ****
  #endif
  
  #if GC_MARK_STACK == GC_MAKE_GCPROS_NOOPS
  
! #define GCPRO1(varname) ((void) 0)
! #define GCPRO2(varname1, varname2)((void) 0) 
! #define GCPRO3(varname1, varname2, varname3) ((void) 0) 
! #define GCPRO4(varname1, varname2, varname3, varname4) ((void) 0)
! #define GCPRO5(varname1, varname2, varname3, varname4, varname5) ((void) 0)
  #define UNGCPRO ((void) 0)
  
  #else /* GC_MARK_STACK != GC_MAKE_GCPROS_NOOPS */
--- 1814,1830 ----
  #endif
  
  #if GC_MARK_STACK == GC_MAKE_GCPROS_NOOPS
+ 
+ /* Do something silly with gcproN vars just so gcc shuts up.  */
  
! #define GCPRO1(varname) ((void) gcpro1)
! #define GCPRO2(varname1, varname2)(((void) gcpro2, (void) gcpro1)) 
! #define GCPRO3(varname1, varname2, varname3) \
!   (((void) gcpro3, (void) gcpro2, (void) gcpro1))
! #define GCPRO4(varname1, varname2, varname3, varname4) \
!   (((void) gcpro4, (void) gcpro3, (void) gcpro2, (void) gcpro1))
! #define GCPRO5(varname1, varname2, varname3, varname4, varname5) \
!   (((void) gcpro5, (void) gcpro4, (void) gcpro3, (void) gcpro2, (void) 
gcpro1))
  #define UNGCPRO ((void) 0)
  
  #else /* GC_MARK_STACK != GC_MAKE_GCPROS_NOOPS */