From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Dec  3 13:31:46 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA25170
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 1995 13:31:46 -0800
Received: from asstdc.scgt.oz.au (root@asstdc.scgt.oz.au [202.14.234.65])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA25165
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 3 Dec 1995 13:31:41 -0800
Received: (from imb@localhost)
	by asstdc.scgt.oz.au (8.6.12/BSD-4.4)
	id IAA12009; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 08:30:48 +1100
From: michael butler <imb@scgt.oz.au>
Message-Id: <199512032130.IAA12009@asstdc.scgt.oz.au>
Subject: Re: changes in -current..TEST please
To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 08:30:47 +1100 (EST)
Cc: current@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199512032054.NAA09061@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Dec 3, 95 01:54:41 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1117      
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

Terry Lambert writes:

> 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.

Yes but look at the reference .. from kernel.h ..

#define MAKE_SET(set, sym, type) \
	static void *const __set_##set##_sym_##sym = \
		(&__set_##set##_sym_##sym, &sym, 0); \
	asm(".stabs \"_" #set "\", " #type ", 0, 0, _" #sym)
#define TEXT_SET(set, sym) MAKE_SET(set, sym, 23)
#define DATA_SET(set, sym) MAKE_SET(set, sym, 25)
#define BSS_SET(set, sym)  MAKE_SET(set, sym, 27)
#define ABS_SET(set, sym)  MAKE_SET(set, sym, 21)

 [ .. etc .. ]

 .. it's declared "static" which in all my references, means "local to this
file" and then referenced externally (by the linker) and not by any code
that GCC can see. The resultant compiler behaviour is undefined as far as
I'm aware so I don't believe the claim that GCC is broken in this example
(in other ways, yes, but not this).

Removing "static" tells the compiler to leave it alone as it _might_ be
referenced beyond its limited vision,

	michael