Hi Tom, On Mon, 25 May 2026 at 09:22, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 09:02:02AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2026-05-22T21:27:48, Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > linker_lists: Do not set 'unused' attribute > > > > > > Whenever we declare something to be in a linker list, we want it to be > > > included. This is why all of our linker scripts have a line similar to: > > > KEEP(*(SORT(__u_boot_list*))); > > > to ensure that any linker list found in any of the archives we are > > > linking together makes it to the final object. Remove the places where > > > we set an attribute saying that it is unused, or maybe_unused. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]> > > > > > > include/linker_lists.h | 9 +++------ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > diff --git a/include/linker_lists.h b/include/linker_lists.h > > > @@ -69,7 +69,6 @@ > > > */ > > > #define ll_entry_declare(_type, _name, _list) > > > \ > > > _type _u_boot_list_2_##_list##_2_##_name __aligned(4) \ > > > - __attribute__((unused)) \ > > > __section('__u_boot_list_2_'#_list'_2_'#_name) > > > > The commit message conflates two unrelated things: > > __attribute__((unused)) and __maybe_unused are purely warning > > suppressions; they do not affect whether the symbol is emitted, kept > > by the linker, or seen by LTO. The thing that prevents removal is > > __used (and at the linker stage, KEEP()). > > > > The real reason removal is safe is that none of these declarations > > would have warned anyway - ll_entry_declare()/ll_entry_declare_list() > > produce non-static externals (no -Wunused-variable for those), > > ll_entry_start()/ll_entry_end() take the address of start[]/end[] > > inside the same statement expression, and the symbols from > > ll_start_decl()/ll_end_decl() are referenced by the caller (cmd_ut.c > > is currently the only one). Please reword the commit message along > > those lines; the KEEP() stuff belongs more naturally with patch 3. > > I don't think your analysis is correct. They are not unrelated things, > they're very much related and were really incorrect at introduction a > decade+ ago (and pre LTO) but I don't think it was worth adding a Fixes > tag.
I mean that the compiler will warn if you declare a static symbol but then don't use it in the same TU (hence the need for 'unused'). warning != inclusion/removal. I haven't quite figured out whether those warnings have gone away, or something else has changed. It will be easier to see when I can build this branch. Regards, Simon
