Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:59:05 +0000 From: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r261916 - head/sys/dev/xen/console Message-ID: <8C22DE47-60F2-47C0-938D-590324818872@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140216035823.I2978@besplex.bde.org> References: <201402151237.s1FCbRnh000507@svn.freebsd.org> <20140216035823.I2978@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15 Feb 2014, at 17:02, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Why? There are hundreds if not thousands of static inline functions = in > headers, and most of these functions are not always used, so there = would > be [hundreds if not thousands] * [number of #includes] compiler = warnings > if compilers warned about things like this. They could handle include > files specially, but shouldn't. They do, and absolutely should, handle include files separately. If you = have a static inline function in a header that is not used in a specific = compilation unit, then that is a little bit of extra work for the = compiler as it has to parse it without it being used, but it is not a = problem. It is a safe assumption that it is used by at least one = compilation unit and so is not dead code (and even if it isn't yet, it = is part of an API, and so removing it would be an error). In contrast, a static inline function in the main source file for a = compilation unit is definitely a bug. It is obviously dead code. It is = likely that it either should have been removed when all callers were = deleted, or should not have been static but accidentally was. =20 David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8C22DE47-60F2-47C0-938D-590324818872>