lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch 01/10] compiler: define __attribute_unused__
    Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Tue, 1 May 2007 22:53:52 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Wed, 2 May 2007, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:28:18PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>+#define __attribute_unused__ __attribute__((unused))
    >>>
    >>>Suggest __unused which is shorter and looks compiler-neutral.
    >>>
    >>
    >>So you would also suggest renaming __attribute_used__ and all 48 of its
    >>uses to __used?
    >
    >
    > Or __needed or __unneeded. None of them mean much to me and I'd be forever
    > going back to the definition to work out what was intended.
    >
    > We're still in search of a name, IMO. But once we have it, yeah, we should
    > update all present users. We can do that over time: retain the old and new
    > definitions for a while.

    maybe_unused?

    The used attribute IMO is a bit easier to parse, so I don't think that
    needs to be renamed.

    Regarding the used vs needed thing, I don't think needed adds very much
    and deviates from gcc terminology. Presumably if something is used it is
    needed, and vice versa; similarly for unused.

    --
    SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-05-02 08:49    [W:0.023 / U:30.672 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site