On Tue, 2024-04-09 at 14:49 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Hmm. I'm pretty sure that I've run into this problem, but I concluded > that I should use either "static inline" or "extern" and didn't think > any more of it.
Pages of warnings is not ideal, though. We should either support "SH_SCOPE static", or have some kind of useful #error that makes it clear that we don't support it (and/or don't think it's a good idea). > I'm not sure that I like the idea of just ignoring the > warnings, for fear that the compiler might not actually remove the > code for the unused functions from the resulting binary. But I'm not > an expert in this area either, so maybe I'm wrong. In a simple "hello world" test with an unreferenced static function, it doesn't seem to be a problem at -O2. I suppose it could be with some compiler somewhere, or perhaps in a more complex scenario, but it would seem strange to me. Regards, Jeff Davis