Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:12:28 +0200 From: Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de> To: rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru Cc: current@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, ia64@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Tinderbox <tinderbox@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [head tinderbox] failure on ia64/ia64 Message-ID: <4A239B7C.8020403@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <gOVq8M8vb7iy5IfrH3ERMpB2m2Y@aAvl70UcjNQBOOyiGNKFwlNO6Qw> References: <20090601042258.909C77302F@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <4A2360BC.8040109@FreeBSD.org> <gOVq8M8vb7iy5IfrH3ERMpB2m2Y@aAvl70UcjNQBOOyiGNKFwlNO6Qw>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eygene Ryabinkin schrieb:
> This is very weird (judging by the GCC's manual) since the simplest C
> program,
> -----
> int main(void)
> {
> return 0;
> }
>
> void foo(void) __attribute__ ((unused))
> {
> return;
> }
> -----
> but ICC 10.x produces the same error and happily chewes __attribute__
> on the function prototype. Anyway, I see no warnings even without
> '((unused)) attribute with -Wall, so '__attribute__ ((unused))' looks
> like no-op nowadays.
There is no warning about foo() being unused, because it is not static.
Christoph
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A239B7C.8020403>