🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4hg4hv$iqb@hubcap.clemson.edu> ckirsch@eng.clemson.edu (Chuck
Kirschman) writes: 
>
>I'm working in *somebody else's code*, which I'm sure everyone pretty
>much dreads.  I've run across a construct which I don't understand the
>purpose of:
>
>void foo(int bar, float *baz)
>{
>  int x,y;
>  
>  (void) x;
>  (void) y;
>  
>  [rest of function]
>}
>
>What is the author trying to acheive?
Of the top, I can think of two plausible scenarios which could acount
for this:

Scenario 1:

    - The programmer originally wrote function using the variables x
and y
    - The programmer later rewrote the function, removing the
references to x and y, but not their declarations
    - The programmer later went through getting rid of the compiler
warnings.  Whenever if saw a 'unused variable' warning, he mindlessly
stuck in a dummy line to get rid of the warning, resulting in the
present code

    If this is the case, you can safely ignore them, or delete them.

Scenario 2 (don't read this unless you have a strong stomache):

    The programmer is playing games with the stack space.  That is, he
figured out how stack space was allocated on his particular compiler,
and he happened to require 2 int's worth of space.  Why he did this
travesty on portability and all common sense, rather that doing
something like explicitly allocating the space he required, I have no
idea.  To see if he is doing this, look through the [rest of function]
code to see if he takes the address of an auto or a parameter, and does
arithmetic on the resulting pointer.  If so, well, you just hit one of
the top coding nightmares :-(
>
>thanks
>chuck
poncho