From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762965AbYDVUr2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:47:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760998AbYDVUq7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:46:59 -0400 Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.214.235]:60724 "EHLO hu-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760342AbYDVUq6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:46:58 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=ma1BCBXy6c1yEXAF0ijWdZU5Eot0m+bRBKQMX5XtQWIxPkLNimEMmnkH1Djt5cL5DDDFSJHse80HrExYs/phMY55wd9EZUPuIqu6Cug1jVIC6KVZR9hWcvOhX3fteiRz4foyR5KGmSyap6bkgXDdK1oF11S1cPLWw6SbH6elGRo= From: Denys Vlasenko To: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: #define out unused parameters =?utf-8?q?of=09xfs=5Fbmap=5Fadd=5Ffree_and?= xfs_btree_read_bufl Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:46:16 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 Cc: Adrian Bunk , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20080419142329.GA5339@elte.hu> <20080422172156.GB28933@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <480E1FAE.20509@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <480E1FAE.20509@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804222246.16980.vda.linux@googlemail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 22 April 2008 19:26, Eric Sandeen wrote: > It would be a huge undertaking. > > Just building xfs w/ the warning in place exposes tons of unused > parameter warnings from outside xfs as well. I was grepping them away. > But, if it was deemed important enough, you could go annotate them as > unused, I suppose, and hack away at it... Does marking as unused just > shut up the warning or does it let gcc do further optimizations? It just shuts up the warning. It is still useful - suppresses false positives. I didn't check whether gcc is clever enough to reuse stack space occupied by unused parameter(s) as a free space for automatic variables. In theory it is allowed to do that and reduce stack usage that way. -- vda