[PATCH] Replace __attribute_pure__ with __pure

[PATCH] Replace __attribute_pure__ with __pure

[Ralf Baechle]

To be consistent with the use of attributes in the rest of the kernel
replace all use of __attribute_pure__ with __pure and delete the
definition of __attribute_pure__.

Signed-off-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>

---
Patch against v2.6.23-rc8-mm2.

And btw why does Analog list half their employees in the MAINTAINERS entry?
Seems a little over the top ...

  Ralf

diff --git a/arch/arm/nwfpe/fpopcode.h b/arch/arm/nwfpe/fpopcode.h
index ec78e35..0090b19 100644
--- a/arch/arm/nwfpe/fpopcode.h
+++ b/arch/arm/nwfpe/fpopcode.h
@@ -369,20 +369,20 @@ TABLE 5
 #define getRoundingMode(opcode)		((opcode & MASK_ROUNDING_MODE) >> 5)
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_FPE_NWFPE_XP
-static inline __attribute_pure__ floatx80 getExtendedConstant(const unsigned int nIndex)
+static inline floatx80 __pure getExtendedConstant(const unsigned int nIndex)
 {
 	extern const floatx80 floatx80Constant[];
 	return floatx80Constant[nIndex];
 }
 #endif
 
-static inline __attribute_pure__ float64 getDoubleConstant(const unsigned int nIndex)
+static inline float64 __pure getDoubleConstant(const unsigned int nIndex)
 {
 	extern const float64 float64Constant[];
 	return float64Constant[nIndex];
 }
 
-static inline __attribute_pure__ float32 getSingleConstant(const unsigned int nIndex)
+static inline float32 __pure getSingleConstant(const unsigned int nIndex)
 {
 	extern const float32 float32Constant[];
 	return float32Constant[nIndex];
diff --git a/drivers/media/video/v4l1-compat.c b/drivers/media/video/v4l1-compat.c
index 9eac65f..dcf22a3 100644
--- a/drivers/media/video/v4l1-compat.c
+++ b/drivers/media/video/v4l1-compat.c
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ const static unsigned int palette2pixelformat[] = {
 	[VIDEO_PALETTE_YUV422P] = V4L2_PIX_FMT_YUV422P,
 };
 
-static unsigned int __attribute_pure__
+static unsigned int __pure
 palette_to_pixelformat(unsigned int palette)
 {
 	if (palette < ARRAY_SIZE(palette2pixelformat))
diff --git a/include/asm-blackfin/processor.h b/include/asm-blackfin/processor.h
index 6bb3e0d..c571e95 100644
--- a/include/asm-blackfin/processor.h
+++ b/include/asm-blackfin/processor.h
@@ -104,13 +104,13 @@ unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p);
 #define cpu_relax()    	barrier()
 
 /* Get the Silicon Revision of the chip */
-static inline __attribute_pure__ uint32_t bfin_revid(void)
+static inline uint32_t __pure bfin_revid(void)
 {
 	/* stored in the upper 4 bits */
 	return bfin_read_CHIPID() >> 28;
 }
 
-static inline __attribute_pure__ uint32_t bfin_compiled_revid(void)
+static inline uint32_t __pure bfin_compiled_revid(void)
 {
 #if defined(CONFIG_BF_REV_0_0)
 	return 0;
diff --git a/include/asm-ppc/time.h b/include/asm-ppc/time.h
index f7eadf6..81dbcd4 100644
--- a/include/asm-ppc/time.h
+++ b/include/asm-ppc/time.h
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ static __inline__ void set_dec(unsigned int val)
 /* Accessor functions for the timebase (RTC on 601) registers. */
 /* If one day CONFIG_POWER is added just define __USE_RTC as 1 */
 #ifdef CONFIG_6xx
-extern __inline__ int __attribute_pure__ __USE_RTC(void) {
+extern __inline__ int __pure __USE_RTC(void) {
 	return (mfspr(SPRN_PVR)>>16) == 1;
 }
 #else
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
index acd5833..fe23792 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
@@ -36,10 +36,20 @@
 #define __weak				__attribute__((weak))
 #define __naked				__attribute__((naked))
 #define __noreturn			__attribute__((noreturn))
+
+/*
+ * From the GCC manual:
+ *
+ * Many functions have no effects except the return value and their
+ * return value depends only on the parameters and/or global
+ * variables.  Such a function can be subject to common subexpression
+ * elimination and loop optimization just as an arithmetic operator
+ * would be.
+ * [...]
+ */
 #define __pure				__attribute__((pure))
 #define __aligned(x)			__attribute__((aligned(x)))
 #define __printf(a,b)			__attribute__((format(printf,a,b)))
 #define  noinline			__attribute__((noinline))
-#define __attribute_pure__		__attribute__((pure))
 #define __attribute_const__		__attribute__((__const__))
 #define __maybe_unused			__attribute__((unused))
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h
index 2165cc9..53354e1 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
@@ -167,20 +167,6 @@ extern int do_check_likely(struct likeliness *likeliness, int exp);
 # define __maybe_unused		/* unimplemented */
 #endif
 
-/*
- * From the GCC manual:
- *
- * Many functions have no effects except the return value and their
- * return value depends only on the parameters and/or global
- * variables.  Such a function can be subject to common subexpression
- * elimination and loop optimization just as an arithmetic operator
- * would be.
- * [...]
- */
-#ifndef __attribute_pure__
-# define __attribute_pure__	/* unimplemented */
-#endif
-
 #ifndef noinline
 #define noinline
 #endif
diff --git a/lib/crc32.c b/lib/crc32.c
index bfc3331..d2c2f25 100644
--- a/lib/crc32.c
+++ b/lib/crc32.c
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
  * @p: pointer to buffer over which CRC is run
  * @len: length of buffer @p
  */
-u32 __attribute_pure__ crc32_le(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len);
+u32 __pure crc32_le(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len);
 
 #if CRC_LE_BITS == 1
 /*
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ u32 __attribute_pure__ crc32_le(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len);
  * simplified by inlining the table in ?: form.
  */
 
-u32 __attribute_pure__ crc32_le(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len)
+u32 __pure crc32_le(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len)
 {
 	int i;
 	while (len--) {
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ u32 __attribute_pure__ crc32_le(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len)
 }
 #else				/* Table-based approach */
 
-u32 __attribute_pure__ crc32_le(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len)
+u32 __pure crc32_le(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len)
 {
 # if CRC_LE_BITS == 8
 	const u32      *b =(u32 *)p;
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ u32 __attribute_pure__ crc32_le(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len)
  * @p: pointer to buffer over which CRC is run
  * @len: length of buffer @p
  */
-u32 __attribute_pure__ crc32_be(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len);
+u32 __pure crc32_be(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len);
 
 #if CRC_BE_BITS == 1
 /*
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ u32 __attribute_pure__ crc32_be(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len);
  * simplified by inlining the table in ?: form.
  */
 
-u32 __attribute_pure__ crc32_be(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len)
+u32 __pure crc32_be(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len)
 {
 	int i;
 	while (len--) {
@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ u32 __attribute_pure__ crc32_be(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len)
 }
 
 #else				/* Table-based approach */
-u32 __attribute_pure__ crc32_be(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len)
+u32 __pure crc32_be(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len)
 {
 # if CRC_BE_BITS == 8
 	const u32      *b =(u32 *)p;
diff --git a/lib/libcrc32c.c b/lib/libcrc32c.c
index 60f4680..802f11f 100644
--- a/lib/libcrc32c.c
+++ b/lib/libcrc32c.c
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(crc32c_le);
  * loop below with crc32 and vary the POLY if we don't find value in terms
  * of space and maintainability in keeping the two modules separate.
  */
-u32 __attribute_pure__
+u32 __pure
 crc32c_le(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len)
 {
 	int i;
@@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ static const u32 crc32c_table[256] = {
  * crc using table.
  */
 
-u32 __attribute_pure__
+u32 __pure
 crc32c_le(u32 seed, unsigned char const *data, size_t length)
 {
 	u32 crc = __cpu_to_le32(seed);
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ crc32c_le(u32 seed, unsigned char const *data, size_t length)
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(crc32c_be);
 
 #if CRC_BE_BITS == 1
-u32 __attribute_pure__
+u32 __pure
 crc32c_be(u32 crc, unsigned char const *p, size_t len)
 {
 	int i;

Re: [PATCH] Replace __attribute_pure__ with __pure

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Sex, 2007-10-05 às 14:13 +0100, Ralf Baechle escreveu:
> To be consistent with the use of attributes in the rest of the kernel
> replace all use of __attribute_pure__ with __pure and delete the
> definition of __attribute_pure__.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>

Acked-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>
 
Cheers,
Mauro

Re: [PATCH] Replace __attribute_pure__ with __pure

[Mike Frysinger]

On 10/5/07, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> wrote:
> To be consistent with the use of attributes in the rest of the kernel
> replace all use of __attribute_pure__ with __pure and delete the
> definition of __attribute_pure__.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>

doesnt matter one way or the other to me, so:
Acked-by: Michael Frysinger <michael.frysinger@analog.com>

> And btw why does Analog list half their employees in the MAINTAINERS entry?
> Seems a little over the top ...

this is supposed to be replaced with just the mailing list
-mike

Re: [PATCH] Replace __attribute_pure__ with __pure

[Robin Getz]

On Fri 5 Oct 2007 09:13, Ralf Baechle pondered:
> And btw why does Analog list half their employees in the MAINTAINERS
> entry?
> Seems a little over the top ...

Yeah, the original submission got a little carried away...

We can cut that down to just Bryan and the mailing list I think.

-Robin

Re: [PATCH] Replace __attribute_pure__ with __pure

[H. Peter Anvin]

Ralf Baechle wrote:
> To be consistent with the use of attributes in the rest of the kernel
> replace all use of __attribute_pure__ with __pure and delete the
> definition of __attribute_pure__.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>

Concern: __attribute_pure__ is very similar to __attribute_const__, 
which is almost completely, but not totally unlike the keyword "const"...

	-hpa

Re: [PATCH] Replace __attribute_pure__ with __pure

[Kyle Moffett]

Trimmed the CC list a bit

On Oct 05, 2007, at 20:51:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ralf Baechle wrote:
>> To be consistent with the use of attributes in the rest of the  
>> kernel replace all use of __attribute_pure__ with __pure and  
>> delete the definition of __attribute_pure__.
>
> Concern: __attribute_pure__ is very similar to __attribute_const__,  
> which is almost completely, but not totally unlike the keyword  
> "const"...

Yes, there's also the fact that __pure is a reserved GCC keyword.   
Essentially according to GCC docs all of the GCC-specific keywords  
are equivalently defined as "keyword", "__keyword", and  
"__keyword__", with only the latter two defined in strict-ANSI mode.   
The following is valid according to GCC docs:

static int __attribute__((__pure)) my_strlen(const char *str);

With the proposed definition of __pure, that becomes a noticeably  
invalid __attribute__((__attribute__((__pure__))))


Cheers,
Kyle Moffett