Unused parameter in c++11

You can just omit the parameter names:

int main(int, char *[])
{

    return 0;
}

And in the case of main, you can even omit the parameters altogether:

int main()
{
    // no return implies return 0;
}

See "§ 3.6 Start and Termination" in the C++11 Standard.

There is the <tuple> in C++11, which includes the ready to use std::ignore object, that's allow us to write (very likely without imposing runtime overheads):

void f(int x)
{
    std::ignore = x;
}

I have used a function with an empty body for that purpose:

template <typename T>
void ignore(T &&)
{ }

void f(int a, int b)
{
  ignore(a);
  ignore(b);
  return;
}

I expect any serious compiler to optimize the function call away and it silences warnings for me.

To "disable" this warning, the best is to avoid writing the argument, just write the type.

void function( int, int )
{
}

or if you prefer, comment it out:

void function( int /*a*/, int /*b*/ )
{
}

You can mix named and unnamed arguments:

void function( int a, int /*b*/ )
{
}

With C++17 you have [[maybe_unused]] attribute specifier, like:

void function( [[maybe_unused]] int a, [[maybe_unused]] int b )
{
}

Nothing equivalent, no.

So you're stuck with the same old options. Are you happy to omit the names in the parameter list entirely?

int main(int, char**)

In the specific case of main, of course, you could simply omit the parameters themselves:

int main()

There are also the typical implementation-specific tricks, such as GCC's __attribute__((unused)).

What do you have against the old and standard way?

void f(int a, int b)
{
  (void)a;
  (void)b;
  return;
}

Macros may not be ideal, but they do a good job for this particular purpose. I'd say stick to using the macro.

The Boost header <boost/core/ignore_unused.hpp> (Boost >= 1.56) defines, for this purpose, the function template boost::ignore_unused().

int fun(int foo, int bar)
{
  boost::ignore_unused(bar);
#ifdef ENABLE_DEBUG_OUTPUT
  if (foo < bar)
    std::cerr << "warning! foo < bar";
#endif

  return foo + 2;
}

PS C++17 has the [[maybe_unused]] attribute to suppresses warnings on unused entities.

There's nothing new available.

What works best for me is to comment out the parameter name in the implementation. That way, you get rid of the warning, but still retain some notion of what the parameter is (since the name is available).

Your macro (and every other cast-to-void approach) has the downside that you can actually use the parameter after using the macro. This can make code harder to maintain.

I really like using macros for this, because it allows you better control when you have different debug builds (e.g. if you want to build with asserts enabled):

#if defined(ENABLE_ASSERTS)
  #define MY_ASSERT(x) assert(x)
#else
  #define MY_ASSERT(x)
#end

#define MY_UNUSED(x)

#if defined(ENABLE_ASSERTS)
  #define MY_USED_FOR_ASSERTS(x) x
#else
  #define MY_USED_FOR_ASSERTS(x) MY_UNUSED(x)
#end

and then use it like:

int myFunc(int myInt, float MY_USED_FOR_ASSERTS(myFloat), char MY_UNUSED(myChar))
{
  MY_ASSERT(myChar < 12.0f);
  return myInt;
}

I have my own implementation for time critical segments of code. I've been researching a while a time critical code for slow down and have found this implementation consumes about 2% from the time critical code i have being optimized:

#define UTILITY_UNUSED(exp) (void)(exp)
#define UTILITY_UNUSED2(e0, e1) UTILITY_UNUSED(e0); UTILITY_UNUSED(e1)
#define ASSERT_EQ(v1, v2) { UTILITY_UNUSED2(v1, v2); } (void)0

The time critical code has used the ASSERT* definitions for debug purposes, but in release it clearly has cutted out, but... Seems this one produces a bit faster code in Visual Studio 2015 Update 3:

#define UTILITY_UNUSED(exp) (void)(false ? (false ? ((void)(exp)) : (void)0) : (void)0)
#define UTILITY_UNUSED2(e0, e1) (void)(false ? (false ? ((void)(e0), (void)(e1)) : (void)0) : (void)0)

The reason is in double false ? expression. It somehow produces a bit faster code in release with maximal optimization.

I don't know why this is faster (seems a bug in compiler optimization), but it at least a better solution for that case of code.

Note: Most important thing here is that a time critical code slow downs without above assertions or unused macroses in release. In another words the double false ? expression surprisingly helps to optimize a code.

windows.h defines UNREFERENCED_PARAMETER:

#define UNREFERENCED_PARAMETER(P) {(P) = (P);}

So you could do it like this:

#include <windows.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
  UNREFERENCED_PARAMETER(argc);
  puts(argv[1]);
  return 0;
}

Or outside of Windows:

#include <stdio.h>
#define UNREFERENCED_PARAMETER(P) {(P) = (P);}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
  UNREFERENCED_PARAMETER(argc);
  puts(argv[1]);
  return 0;
}