Re: %destructor feedback

[Joel E. Denny]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:

> If you're talking about this one:
>
>  static int yyunused;
>  #define YYUSE(e) yyunused = (int*) &(e) && yyunused

Yes, but minus the unnecessary cast I accidentally left in.

> then I suspect it will also run afoul of lint implementations that
> deduce that &(e) can never be null, and print a warning.

Would (&(e)-1) solve that?  I'd test this myself, but I don't have such a 
lint, and I figure you might already know the answer.

> Also, I don't like having an unnecessary static variable around.

Yeah, it's not elegant.

> Also, it won't work if e is declared to be a register, as you can't take 
> addresses of registers.

I didn't know that.  Do people still do that?  It could be documented that 
no parse param should be declared as a register.

Joel