Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 13:54:41 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: imb@scgt.oz.au (michael butler) Cc: julian@ref.tfs.com, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: changes in -current..TEST please Message-ID: <199512032054.NAA09061@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199512030403.PAA20533@asstdc.scgt.oz.au> from "michael butler" at Dec 3, 95 03:03:16 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512032054.NAA09061>