On 03/10/14 23:11, Rusty Russell wrote:
beh...@converseincode.com writes:
From: Mark Charlebois
This code makes a compile time type check that is optimized away. Clang
complains that it generates an unused function.
I believe GCC won't complain for a static inline fuction but would if it
was
beh...@converseincode.com writes:
> From: Mark Charlebois
>
> This code makes a compile time type check that is optimized away. Clang
> complains that it generates an unused function.
>
> I believe GCC won't complain for a static inline fuction but would if it
> was just a static function.
>
>
beh...@converseincode.com writes:
From: Mark Charlebois charl...@gmail.com
This code makes a compile time type check that is optimized away. Clang
complains that it generates an unused function.
I believe GCC won't complain for a static inline fuction but would if it
was just a static
On 03/10/14 23:11, Rusty Russell wrote:
beh...@converseincode.com writes:
From: Mark Charlebois charl...@gmail.com
This code makes a compile time type check that is optimized away. Clang
complains that it generates an unused function.
I believe GCC won't complain for a static inline fuction
On 03/07/14 17:25, PaX Team wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2014 at 16:52, Behan Webster wrote:
>
>> On 03/07/14 14:56, PaX Team wrote:
>>> why can't you have the attr on the definition itself:
>>>
>>> static inline __unused type *__check_##name(void) { return(p); }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> "__unused" isn't defined
On 7 Mar 2014 at 16:52, Behan Webster wrote:
> On 03/07/14 14:56, PaX Team wrote:
> > why can't you have the attr on the definition itself:
> >
> > static inline __unused type *__check_##name(void) { return(p); }
> >
> >
> >
> "__unused" isn't defined anywhere I can find, except in:
>
>
On 03/07/14 14:56, PaX Team wrote:
On 7 Mar 2014 at 11:08, beh...@converseincode.com wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
index c3eb102..5ce1f67 100644
--- a/include/linux/moduleparam.h
+++ b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
@@ -346,6 +346,7 @@ static inline
On 7 Mar 2014 at 11:08, beh...@converseincode.com wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
> index c3eb102..5ce1f67 100644
> --- a/include/linux/moduleparam.h
> +++ b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
> @@ -346,6 +346,7 @@ static inline void destroy_params(const
From: Mark Charlebois
This code makes a compile time type check that is optimized away. Clang
complains that it generates an unused function.
I believe GCC won't complain for a static inline fuction but would if it
was just a static function.
Adding the unused attribute to the function
From: Mark Charlebois charl...@gmail.com
This code makes a compile time type check that is optimized away. Clang
complains that it generates an unused function.
I believe GCC won't complain for a static inline fuction but would if it
was just a static function.
Adding the unused attribute to
On 7 Mar 2014 at 11:08, beh...@converseincode.com wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
index c3eb102..5ce1f67 100644
--- a/include/linux/moduleparam.h
+++ b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
@@ -346,6 +346,7 @@ static inline void destroy_params(const struct
On 03/07/14 14:56, PaX Team wrote:
On 7 Mar 2014 at 11:08, beh...@converseincode.com wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
index c3eb102..5ce1f67 100644
--- a/include/linux/moduleparam.h
+++ b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
@@ -346,6 +346,7 @@ static inline
On 7 Mar 2014 at 16:52, Behan Webster wrote:
On 03/07/14 14:56, PaX Team wrote:
why can't you have the attr on the definition itself:
static inline __unused type *__check_##name(void) { return(p); }
__unused isn't defined anywhere I can find, except in:
On 03/07/14 17:25, PaX Team wrote:
On 7 Mar 2014 at 16:52, Behan Webster wrote:
On 03/07/14 14:56, PaX Team wrote:
why can't you have the attr on the definition itself:
static inline __unused type *__check_##name(void) { return(p); }
__unused isn't defined anywhere I can find, except in:
14 matches
Mail list logo
