Re: [patch 01/10] compiler: define __attribute_unused__

[Nick Piggin]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2007 22:53:52 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > On Wed, 2 May 2007, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:28:18PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > >
> > > > +#define __attribute_unused__		__attribute__((unused))
> > >
> > > Suggest __unused which is shorter and looks compiler-neutral.
> >
> > So you would also suggest renaming __attribute_used__ and all 48 of its 
> > uses to __used?
>
>
> Or __needed or __unneeded.  None of them mean much to me and I'd be forever
> going back to the definition to work out what was intended.
>
> We're still in search of a name, IMO.  But once we have it, yeah, we should
> update all present users.  We can do that over time: retain the old and new
> definitions for a while.

maybe_unused?

The used attribute IMO is a bit easier to parse, so I don't think that
needs to be renamed.

Regarding the used vs needed thing, I don't think needed adds very much
and deviates from gcc terminology. Presumably if something is used it is
needed, and vice versa; similarly for unused.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/