linux-kernel - Re: [patch 01/10] compiler: define __attribute_unused_

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705020020420.22717@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 May 2007 00:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
cc:	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, 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 really needed or not?").
> 

Hi Rusty,

There are many instances in the tree of functions that have no callers 
whatsoever because they've been commented out temporarily, disabled 
through configuration, etc.  These are marked __attribute__ ((unused)) 
right now so that the compiler doesn't emit a warning (and with gcc >=3.4 
it doesn't even emit code for them).  What's __optional about these 
functions if they have no callers?  They're unused.  So we cover all our 
bases with __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/