This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: Warnings about rcs_id strings: let's settle this
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Kean Johnston <jkj at sco dot com>
- Cc: "'Joseph S. Myers'" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>, "'Zack Weinberg'" <zack at codesourcery dot com>, "'Joe Buck'" <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 05 May 2003 13:28:32 -0700
- Subject: RE: Warnings about rcs_id strings: let's settle this
- References: <00bf01c31195$c0c28a40$03419384@shrike>
On Sat, 2003-05-03 at 10:02, Kean Johnston wrote:
> > Joe Buck would very much like to see us do something here for the 3.3
> > release.
> How about the attached patch then. I would like to do a better job
> as discussed here for 3.4 if that's OK? But will this do for 3.3?
> One caveat. I cant build a 3.3 tree easily at all, so this patch is
> COMPLETELY untested. I would greatly appreciate it if someone would
> do that for me.
> 2003-05-02 Kean Johnston <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> * toplev.c (check_global_declarations): Restore 3.2 behaviour
> regards to unused statics.
> Index: toplev.c
> RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/toplev.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.690.2.18
> diff -u -r1.690.2.18 toplev.c
> --- toplev.c 2 May 2003 21:01:19 -0000 1.690.2.18
> +++ toplev.c 3 May 2003 16:59:52 -0000
> @@ -2037,9 +2037,14 @@
> assemble_external (decl);
> - /* Warn about static fns or vars defined but not used. */
> - if (((warn_unused_function && TREE_CODE (decl) == FUNCTION_DECL)
> - || (warn_unused_variable && TREE_CODE (decl) == VAR_DECL))
> + /* Warn about static fns or vars defined but not used,
> + but not about inline functions or static consts
> + since defining those in header files is normal practice. */
> + if (((warn_unused_function
> + && TREE_CODE (decl) == FUNCTION_DECL && ! DECL_INLINE
DECL_INLINE is not the right thing to test; that says whether the
compiler thinks inlining the function is a good idea, not whether it was
declared "inline" or not. (And that notion is language-specific, so
it's not even clear it would make sense to have a check for it in
toplev.c. One should, in fact, wonder whether it makes sense for any of
these checks to be language-independent code at all.)
Your modified test case fails because of this issue; with -O3 (as in the
test case) all functions are marked DECL_INLINE, and therefore "f" is
not warned about.
In any case, the alleged showstopper here was that rcs_id got warned
about, not anything to do with functions. Therefore, I've undone the
function part of your patch, and am re-testing.