From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch] compiler, clang: suppress warning for unused static inline functions
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:22:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170524212229.GR141096@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1705241400510.49680@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
El Wed, May 24, 2017 at 02:01:15PM -0700 David Rientjes ha dit:
> GCC explicitly does not warn for unused static inline functions for
> -Wunused-function. The manual states:
>
> Warn whenever a static function is declared but not defined or
> a non-inline static function is unused.
>
> Clang does warn for static inline functions that are unused.
>
> It turns out that suppressing the warnings avoids potentially complex
> #ifdef directives, which also reduces LOC.
>
> Supress the warning for clang.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> ---
As expressed earlier in other threads, I don't think gcc's behavior is
preferable in this case. The warning on static inline functions (only
in .c files) allows to detect truly unused code. About 50% of the
warnings I have looked into so far fall into this category.
In my opinion it is more valuable to detect dead code than not having
a few more __maybe_unused attributes (there aren't really that many
instances, at least with x86 and arm64 defconfig). In most cases it is
not necessary to use #ifdef, it is an option which is preferred by
some maintainers. The reduced LOC is arguable, since dectecting dead
code allows to remove it.
I'm not a kernel maintainer, so it's not my decision whether this
warning should be silenced, my personal opinion is that it's benfits
outweigh the inconveniences of dealing with half-false positives,
generally caused by the heavy use of #ifdef by the kernel itself.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch] compiler, clang: suppress warning for unused static inline functions
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:22:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170524212229.GR141096@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1705241400510.49680@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
El Wed, May 24, 2017 at 02:01:15PM -0700 David Rientjes ha dit:
> GCC explicitly does not warn for unused static inline functions for
> -Wunused-function. The manual states:
>
> Warn whenever a static function is declared but not defined or
> a non-inline static function is unused.
>
> Clang does warn for static inline functions that are unused.
>
> It turns out that suppressing the warnings avoids potentially complex
> #ifdef directives, which also reduces LOC.
>
> Supress the warning for clang.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> ---
As expressed earlier in other threads, I don't think gcc's behavior is
preferable in this case. The warning on static inline functions (only
in .c files) allows to detect truly unused code. About 50% of the
warnings I have looked into so far fall into this category.
In my opinion it is more valuable to detect dead code than not having
a few more __maybe_unused attributes (there aren't really that many
instances, at least with x86 and arm64 defconfig). In most cases it is
not necessary to use #ifdef, it is an option which is preferred by
some maintainers. The reduced LOC is arguable, since dectecting dead
code allows to remove it.
I'm not a kernel maintainer, so it's not my decision whether this
warning should be silenced, my personal opinion is that it's benfits
outweigh the inconveniences of dealing with half-false positives,
generally caused by the heavy use of #ifdef by the kernel itself.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-24 21:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-24 21:01 [patch] compiler, clang: suppress warning for unused static inline functions David Rientjes
2017-05-24 21:01 ` David Rientjes
2017-05-24 21:22 ` Matthias Kaehlcke [this message]
2017-05-24 21:22 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-05-24 21:32 ` Andrew Morton
2017-05-24 21:32 ` Andrew Morton
2017-05-24 23:28 ` Doug Anderson
2017-05-24 23:28 ` Doug Anderson
2017-05-31 0:10 ` David Rientjes
2017-05-31 0:10 ` David Rientjes
2017-05-31 1:53 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-05-31 1:53 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-05-31 15:53 ` Doug Anderson
2017-05-31 15:53 ` Doug Anderson
2017-05-31 18:26 ` Mark Brown
2017-05-31 21:45 ` David Rientjes
2017-05-31 21:45 ` David Rientjes
2017-05-31 22:31 ` Doug Anderson
2017-05-31 22:31 ` Doug Anderson
2017-06-01 0:01 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-06-01 0:01 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-05-25 5:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-05-25 5:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-05-25 16:14 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-05-25 16:14 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-05-25 16:48 ` Joe Perches
2017-05-25 16:48 ` Joe Perches
2017-05-25 17:49 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-05-25 17:49 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
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=20170524212229.GR141096@google.com \
--to=mka@chromium.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/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.