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

[David Rientjes]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/