[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070503175125.GL3531@stusta.de>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 19:51:26 +0200
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 01/10] compiler: define __attribute_unused__
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 -Werror then we need
> > -Wno-unused-function, not annotating individual functions.
>
> 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 warnings.
> preprocessor macros? You need to annotate them with __attribute__
> ((unused)) to suppress compiler warnings. Globally disabling such
> warnings would eventually cause unused code to go unnoticed.
But looking at a kernel build it seems there are far few warnings than I
remembered, so it might actually be possible to annotate all code
accordingly.
> David
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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