From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Dec  7 04:37:20 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id EAA07449
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 04:37:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA07444
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 04:37:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id XAA08175; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 23:28:12 +1100
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 23:28:12 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199512071228.XAA08175@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, phk@critter.tfs.com
Subject: Re: changes in -current..TEST please
Cc: current@freebsd.org, imb@scgt.oz.au, julian@ref.tfs.com, terry@lambert.org
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>> 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.
>?

Nothing except conventions.  There has to be a convention to stop it
removing rcsid strings, etc.  gcc's conventions seem to be that static
static data is never removed but static non-const data is warned about.  

Bruce