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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox