[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D17265D81@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:40:28 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Guenter Roeck' <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
CC: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] sched: Fix compiler warnings
From: Guenter Roeck
> On 06/25/2014 07:49 AM, Uwe Kleine-Knig wrote:
> > Hello Guenter,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:27:47AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> Maybe the author's intention was:
> >>>
> >>> static inline int cpu_corepower_flags(void) __attribute__((const));
> >>>
> >>> ?
> >>> This specifies that the function has no side effects and the return value
> >>> only depends on the (here non-existing) function arguments.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Possibly, but either I am missing something or this doesn't compile.
> > You need to do a separate declaration:
> >
> > static inline int cpu_corepower_flags(void) __attribute__((const));
> > static inline int cpu_corepower_flags(void)
> > {
> > ...
>
> Actually turns out one can use __attribute_const__, and it is
>
> static inline int __attribute_const__ cpu_corepower_flags(void)
>
> which turns out to be widely used.
>
> I'll change that and resubmit after testing.
You don't need to tell the compiler that for an inline function.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists