[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:0.029 / U:7.852 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site