Re: [patch] cpufreq: do not declare undefined functions

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Dave Jones wrote:

> it's just a prototype, so no code is generated by declaring one
> to an unused (or even non-existant) function.
> 
> Or are you using some oddball compiler that warns about this?
> 

If you consider gcc to be oddball, yes.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch] cpufreq: do not declare undefined functions
    • From: Dave Jones <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch] cpufreq: do not declare undefined functions
    • From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] cpufreq: do not declare undefined functions
    • From: Dave Jones <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: condingstyle, was Re: utrace comments
• Next by Date: Re: 2.6.21-mm1: many processes end up in D state
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] cpufreq: do not declare undefined functions
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] cpufreq: do not declare undefined functions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]