[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705020015470.22717@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 00:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 01/10] compiler: define __attribute_unused__
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 __unused" *
> drivers/net/defxx.c:#define __unused __attribute__ ((unused))
> drivers/net/declance.c:#define __unused __attribute__ ((unused))
> drivers/misc/thinkpad_acpi.c:#define __unused __attribute__ ((unused))
>
> i think "__unused" is the clear choice here.
>
No, it's not the clear choice. This would apply to both functions and
variables so the suppress a compiler warning for a variable whose use
depends on preprocessor macros, I would have to use __unused even though
it may be used.
Hence, I recommend __maybe_unused.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists