Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 10:07:38 +0000 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: imb@scgt.oz.au (michael butler), julian@ref.tfs.com, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: changes in -current..TEST please Message-ID: <281.818071658@critter.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 03 Dec 1995 13:54:41 MST." <199512032054.NAA09061@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry, read your manuals again before you talk about things you don't
know too much, and certainly not enough, about.
> > GCC, at optimisation levels > 1, will remove data (and code) which it
> > considers to be unreferenced. _dummy_cleanup is declared 'static' yet is
> > unreferenced in the file in which it appears. Given that 'static' implies
> > 'local to this file', this is valid behaviour. However, since the variable
> > in question really is intended to be used by things external to kern_xxx.c,
> > perhaps it should not be declared 'static' and GCC will leave it alone at
> > all optimisation settings ..
>
> How is dummy_cleanup "not referenced"?
>
> phaeton: {50} grep dummy_cleanup *.c
> kern_xxx.c:dummy_cleanup() {}
> kern_xxx.c:TEXT_SET(cleanup_set, dummy_cleanup);
>
> Looks referenced to me.
>
> I think GCC is doing bogus things.
>
> Is it also removing "cleanup_set"? That would be so incredibly bogus
> as to cause all C++ and most of the FreeBSD kernel to fail miserably.
--
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?281.818071658>