On 07/13/2011 07:42 AM, Matthias Bolte wrote: > 2011/7/9 Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>: >> The compiler might optimize based on our declaration that something >> is unused. > > Can this actually happen? The unused marker only says that something > _might_ be unused. I don't think that a compiler can optimize > something based on this when it cannot actually prove that it is > really unused.
Hmm, given gcc's documentation that it is a 'might' be unused, then yeah, gcc shouldn't do premature optimizations on the caller side. But better safe than sorry. > >> Putting that declaration in the header risks getting >> out of sync with the actual implementation, so it belongs better >> only in the .c files. We were mostly compliant, and a new syntax >> check will help us in the future. > > This is a valid point. Consistency is a good argument, even if the argument for (lack of) compiler optimizations is weak in this case :) > > ACK. I've now applied 25, 26, and 28. Expect a v3 later today which fixes the fallout comments on the remaining patches. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
