Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 12:50:23 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: current@freebsd.org, imb@scgt.oz.au, julian@ref.tfs.com, terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: changes in -current..TEST please Message-ID: <2868.818337023@critter.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Dec 1995 05:58:15 %2B1100." <199512061858.FAA31752@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The manual only seems to say that the above stops the warning. gcc-2.7 > has a better method: > > static void dummy_cleanup(void) __attribute__((__unused__)); > > This stops the warning but doesn't stop dummy_cleanup() going away with > -O3 any better than MAKE_SET() (it goes away because it becomes static > inline. static inlines _should_ go away). > > Why not initialize a pointer to the function? Then the function address > _is_ used provided the pointer doesn't go away. Why does the comma > expression end with an 0 anyway? The following seems to work right > (except it wastes a pointer): > > static void (*const foo)(void) = dummy_cleanup; Well, what would prevent gcc from going foo isn't used, zap it. now dummy_cleanup isn't used, zap it. ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2868.818337023>