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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[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]
