From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Simek Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 08:57:17 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/4] microblaze: Fix compilation warning in ext2_find_next_zero_bit In-Reply-To: <201211080230.52319.marex@denx.de> References: <1349441933-22840-1-git-send-email-monstr@monstr.eu> <201210051848.03806.marex@denx.de> <509A8779.7040501@monstr.eu> <201211080230.52319.marex@denx.de> Message-ID: <509B65DD.2050704@monstr.eu> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 11/08/2012 02:30 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > Dear Michal Simek, > >> On 10/05/2012 06:48 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> Dear Michal Simek, >>> >>>> ext2_find_next_zero_bit must be also static if __swab32 is also static. >>>> >>>> Warning: >>>> include/asm/bitops.h:369:22: warning: '__fswab32' is static but >>>> used in inline function 'ext2_find_next_zero_bit' >>>> which is not static [enabled by default] >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek >>>> --- >>>> >>>> arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h | 3 ++- >>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h >>>> b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h index e8c835f..eafa2b5 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h >>>> +++ b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h >>>> @@ -319,7 +319,8 @@ extern __inline__ int ext2_test_bit(int nr, const >>>> volatile void * addr) #define ext2_find_first_zero_bit(addr, size) \ >>>> >>>> ext2_find_next_zero_bit((addr), (size), 0) >>>> >>>> -extern __inline__ unsigned long ext2_find_next_zero_bit(void *addr, >>>> unsigned long size, unsigned long offset) +static inline unsigned long >>>> ext2_find_next_zero_bit(void *addr, >>>> + unsigned long size, unsigned long offset) >>>> >>>> { >>>> >>>> unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *) addr) + (offset >> 5); >>>> unsigned long result = offset & ~31UL; >>> >>> I'd rather see it done the other way -- drop the inline and let compiler >>> decide. What are the size penalties ? >> >> With inline >> text data bss dec hex filename >> 361914 14698 232344 608956 94abc ./u-boot >> >> without inline >> text data bss dec hex filename >> 361922 14698 232368 608988 94adc ./u-boot >> >> But the problem is that I can see a lot of warnings that this function is >> unused. u-boot/include/asm/bitops.h:322:22: warning: >> 'ext2_find_next_zero_bit' defined but not used [-Wunused-function] >> >> FYI: I have just grepped source tree and I see that the same solution is >> used by blackfin/mips and powerpc. >> >> $ grep -rn "ext2_find_next_zero_bit" arch/ | grep static >> arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h:322:static inline unsigned long >> ext2_find_next_zero_bit(void *addr, >> arch/blackfin/include/asm/bitops.h:324:static __inline__ unsigned long >> ext2_find_next_zero_bit(void *addr, >> arch/mips/include/asm/bitops.h:830:static __inline__ unsigned long >> ext2_find_next_zero_bit(void *addr, unsigned long size, unsigned long >> offset) arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h:344:static __inline__ unsigned >> long ext2_find_next_zero_bit(void *addr, > > DAMN :-( Maybe we should focus on --gc-sections for whole u-boot. Anyway, I'd > say apply this and then start working on the --gc-sections. I have passed this to our toolchain guy. Thanks, Michal -- Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng) w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854 Maintainer of Linux kernel 2.6 Microblaze Linux - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/ Microblaze U-BOOT custodian