On Thursday, August 25, 2011 17:44:58 Timur Tabi wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > if we let the optimizer do it instead of the preprocessor, we get better
> > code coverage in the face of different config settings.
>
> Oh, I thought this was some new feature of U-Boot.
>
> Can you give me an ex
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Oh, I thought this was some new feature of U-Boot.
>
I meant a new feature of gcc. Ugh.
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if we let the optimizer do it instead of the preprocessor, we get better code
> coverage in the face of different config settings.
Oh, I thought this was some new feature of U-Boot.
Can you give me an example of where DCE could be used to eliminate an #ifdef?
--
Timur T
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message <7056f5b1-ad6c-459e-80f1-8ee436cc7...@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
>
> > well, that's the reason for the warnings showing up, it isn't the
> > reason why we cannot fix these?
>
> :), Thus my query if we really wanted to try and fix them by adding more
> #ifdef's or
On Thursday, August 25, 2011 15:50:57 Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i feel like some (many?) #ifdef's in the tree could be done without
> > ifdefs (by relying on gcc's DCE) thus improving overall code quality
>
> What's DCE?
dead code elimi
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i feel like some (many?) #ifdef's in the tree could be done without ifdefs (by
> relying on gcc's DCE) thus improving overall code quality
What's DCE?
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
On Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:27:42 Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2011, at 12:52 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Kumar Gala wrote:
> >>> If the variable is not used, why don't we remove it, then?
> >>
> >> In the vast number of cases it because of some #ifdef case not be
> >> defined in the given
On Aug 25, 2011, at 12:52 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Kumar Gala,
>
> In message <348935c0-0c2d-4a7a-8abe-9d09e2904...@kernel.crashing.org> you
> wrote:
>>
>>> If the variable is not used, why don't we remove it, then?
>>
>> In the vast number of cases it because of some #ifdef case not b
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message <348935c0-0c2d-4a7a-8abe-9d09e2904...@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
>
> > If the variable is not used, why don't we remove it, then?
>
> In the vast number of cases it because of some #ifdef case not be
> defined in the given build.
well, that's the reason for the
On Aug 24, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Kumar Gala,
>
> In message <3aa0e5b6-7e38-4cb0-94e2-f7bba9a10...@kernel.crashing.org> you
> wrote:
>> We get a bunch of warnings like this with gcc-4.6.x:
>>
>> e1000.c:4334:3: warning: variable 'x' set but not used
>> [-Wunused-but-set
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message <3aa0e5b6-7e38-4cb0-94e2-f7bba9a10...@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
> We get a bunch of warnings like this with gcc-4.6.x:
>
> e1000.c:4334:3: warning: variable 'x' set but not used
> [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>
> Are we get with adding -Wunused-but-set-variable
On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 14:29:43 Kumar Gala wrote:
> We get a bunch of warnings like this with gcc-4.6.x:
>
> e1000.c:4334:3: warning: variable 'x' set but not used
> [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>
> Are we get with adding -Wunused-but-set-variable so they don't show up?
in general, i like
We get a bunch of warnings like this with gcc-4.6.x:
e1000.c:4334:3: warning: variable 'x' set but not used
[-Wunused-but-set-variable]
Are we get with adding -Wunused-but-set-variable so they don't show up?
- k
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.de
13 matches
Mail list logo
