[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 01/10] compiler: define __attribute_unused__
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2007 22:53:52 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <> 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.


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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-02 08:49    [W:0.085 / U:4.060 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site