Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:06:10 +0400 From: Eygene Ryabinkin <rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru> To: Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de> Cc: FreeBSD Tinderbox <tinderbox@freebsd.org>, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, current@freebsd.org, ia64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [head tinderbox] failure on ia64/ia64 Message-ID: <yoXtrgLwEhUUUVB9yEfuiR%2BhmzM@j4OYE6OL8eALCd4BvSxIfwgoxSc> In-Reply-To: <4A239B7C.8020403@gmx.de> References: <20090601042258.909C77302F@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <4A2360BC.8040109@FreeBSD.org> <gOVq8M8vb7iy5IfrH3ERMpB2m2Y@aAvl70UcjNQBOOyiGNKFwlNO6Qw> <4A239B7C.8020403@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Christoph, good day.
Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 11:12:28AM +0200, Christoph Mallon wrote:
> 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.
Yes, you're perfectly right. Thanks for education!
--
Eygene
_ ___ _.--. #
\`.|\..----...-'` `-._.-'_.-'` # Remember that it is hard
/ ' ` , __.--' # to read the on-line manual
)/' _/ \ `-_, / # while single-stepping the kernel.
`-'" `"\_ ,_.-;_.-\_ ', fsc/as #
_.-'_./ {_.' ; / # -- FreeBSD Developers handbook
{_.-``-' {_/ #
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?yoXtrgLwEhUUUVB9yEfuiR%2BhmzM>