On Thu, 3 May 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > static external variables are certainly still static code and gcc issues
> > the proper warnings if I do:
> >
> > static struct bootnode nodes[MAX_NUMNODES];
> >
> > and I never reference nodes.
>
> No disagreement.
>
> But you said:
> What abo
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 11:56:34AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > > That's only addressing part of the issue. What about automatic or static
> > > external variables that are declared but may go unreferenced depending on
> >
> > This is only about s
On Thu, 3 May 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > That's only addressing part of the issue. What about automatic or static
> > external variables that are declared but may go unreferenced depending on
>
> This is only about static code. For non-static code it would be
> impossible for gcc to issue wa
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 10:16:15AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > If we don't want any warnings with CONFIG_PCI=n, CONFIG_SYSFS=n or
> > CONFIG_PROC_FS=n, we'd have to annotate _many_ functions.
> >
> > If the lonterm goal is to compile the kernel with
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If we don't want any warnings with CONFIG_PCI=n, CONFIG_SYSFS=n or
> CONFIG_PROC_FS=n, we'd have to annotate _many_ functions.
>
> If the lonterm goal is to compile the kernel with -Werror then we need
> -Wno-unused-function, not annotating individual fun
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 04:55:50PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> "many ... are marked __attribute__ ((unused))" is not true:
> $ grep -r __attribute_used__ * | wc -l
> 60
> $
Sorry, my fault - I confused used and unused.
>...
> Unused static non-inline functions are the only functions resulting
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 12:22:24AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > That sounds exactly right to me! If the author says it's optional, it
> > might be discarded. If they say it's needed, it won't be. At least,
> > when I'm coding and gcc warns me
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 00:22 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > That sounds exactly right to me! If the author says it's optional, it
> > might be discarded. If they say it's needed, it won't be. At least,
> > when I'm coding and gcc warns me someth
On Wed, 2 May 2007, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > not only that, but there are numerous files that *already* use
> > "__unused":
> >
> > $ grep -rw __unused *
> > ... snip lots of output here ...
> >
> > as well as a few files that can now have their d
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> That sounds exactly right to me! If the author says it's optional, it
> might be discarded. If they say it's needed, it won't be. At least,
> when I'm coding and gcc warns me something is unused, this is the
> decision I have to make ("is this re
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> not only that, but there are numerous files that *already* use
> "__unused":
>
> $ grep -rw __unused *
> ... snip lots of output here ...
>
> as well as a few files that can now have their definition of that
> removed:
>
> $ grep -r "define __unus
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 23:41 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > OTOH, your point about "__unneeded" is well taken. "__needed" and
> > "__optional" perhaps? But their feature is *exactly* that the don't
> > look like the gcc attributes, hence avoid their
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:28:18PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > +#define __attribute_unused__ __attribute__((unused))
>
> Suggest __unused which is shorter and looks compiler-neutral.
not only that, but there are numerous files that
On Tue, 1 May 2007 23:41:34 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> compiler: define __maybe_unused
>
> Define __maybe_unused to apply to both functions or variables as
> __attribute__((unused)). This will not emit a compile-time warning when
> a function or variable is declared
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2007 22:53:52 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:28:18PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
+#define __attribute_unused__ __attribute__((unused))
Suggest __un
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> OTOH, your point about "__unneeded" is well taken. "__needed" and
> "__optional" perhaps? But their feature is *exactly* that the don't
> look like the gcc attributes, hence avoid their semantic screwage.
>
Hmm, __optional doesn't sound appropriate ei
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 23:06 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > Adding this macro doesn't give us anything that simply saying
> > "__attribute__((unused))" doesn't give. But it does add a layer of
> > kernel-specific indirection.
> >
>
> That's obviousl
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 10:53:52PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
>On Wed, 2 May 2007, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:28:18PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
>> > +#define __attribute_unused__ __attribute__((unused))
>>
>> Suggest __unused which is shorter and looks
On Tue, 1 May 2007, David Rientjes wrote:
> The patched version makes this:
>
> int type __attribute_unused__ = 0;
>
> which definitely tells you that you're using a compiler attribute that
> will be attached to that automatic. In your case:
>
> int type __unneeded = 0;
>
> doesn
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Adding this macro doesn't give us anything that simply saying
> "__attribute__((unused))" doesn't give. But it does add a layer of
> kernel-specific indirection.
>
That's obviously true since we're defining __attribute_unused__ to be
__attribute__((un
On Tue, 1 May 2007 22:53:52 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:28:18PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > +#define __attribute_unused__ __attribute__((unused))
> >
> > Suggest __unused w
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:28:18PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > +#define __attribute_unused__ __attribute__((unused))
>
> Suggest __unused which is shorter and looks compiler-neutral.
>
So you would also suggest renaming __attribute
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 21:28 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> For all supported versions of gcc (major version 3 and above), functions
> and variables may be declared with __attribute__((unused)) to suppress
> warnings if they are declared but unused.
Adding this macro doesn't give us anything that s
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:28:18PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> +#define __attribute_unused__ __attribute__((unused))
Suggest __unused which is shorter and looks compiler-neutral.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAI
For all supported versions of gcc (major version 3 and above), functions
and variables may be declared with __attribute__((unused)) to suppress
warnings if they are declared but unused.
This shouldn't be confused with functions being declared with
__attribute__((used)). This specifies that the fu
25 matches
Mail list logo
