From: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ppc4xx: Add Sequoia RAM-booting target
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 17:39:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200905071739.56301.sr@denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m2ocu56jgo.fsf@ohwell.denx.de>
On Thursday 07 May 2009, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> >> If so, it still seems to be a somewhat rude way to do it. How
> >> long will it take the gcc maintainers to produce a "warning: unused
> >> variable is used" warning? ;)
> >
> > I prefer to do it this way instead of encasing the variable declaration
> > into another #ifdef ... #endif section. This is used in many cases in the
> > Linux kernel btw. Here the macro "__maybe_unsed" is defined to
> > "__attribute__((unused))".
>
> In many cases? a rgrep on a recent kernel counts 84 incantations, which
> is not much for the Linux kernel, I believe.
Perhaps it's quite new to the Linux kernel. I just spotted it the first time a
few weeks ago and thought: "What a nice way to remove some of the ugly
#ifdef's in U-Boot!". :)
> > So what should I do now? Should I revert to another #ifdef in the
> > variable declaration? Or is the current version ok?
>
> I'm not too sure myself. What really tickles me, and what speaks
> against using this attribute, is the fact that the "unused" attribute is
> itself not part of an #ifdef, whereas the intention clearly is that this
> attribute should only be applied when the ifdefs erases code.
BTW: The resulting code/data length is the same, comparing a version with
#ifdef's, the attribute version or a version with the variable declaration
intact and the warnings.
> Now currently this connection maybe clear for the writer of the patch,
> but it is in no way obvious in the code. So theoretically, when the
> #ifdef gets removed, nobody will think about the "unused" attributes,
> forget them and then we have effectively lost correct warnings.
This could be the case. But this could happen to the #ifdef version as well.
That the #ifdef'ed variable declaration stays in the code after removing the
code referencing the variables.
Best regards,
Stefan
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: office at denx.de
=====================================================================
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-07 15:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-05 15:01 [U-Boot] [PATCH] ppc4xx: Add Sequoia RAM-booting target Stefan Roese
2009-05-07 12:25 ` Detlev Zundel
2009-05-07 13:30 ` Stefan Roese
2009-05-07 15:06 ` Detlev Zundel
2009-05-07 15:39 ` Stefan Roese [this message]
2009-05-07 19:06 ` Wolfgang Denk
2009-05-07 19:22 ` Scott Wood
2009-05-08 4:30 ` Stefan Roese
2009-05-08 12:34 ` Detlev Zundel
2009-05-07 18:42 ` Wolfgang Denk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200905071739.56301.sr@denx.de \
--to=sr@denx.de \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.