Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:24:13 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] clang: 'unused-function' warning on static inline functions |
| |
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:36:27 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > The main reason I see for it is that a lot of the unused inline functions > > in C files are mistakes, > > Bah. Blah blah blah. > > The clang warnign doesn't actually really buy us anything, and it's a > completely pointless difference to gcc. > > I'm not in the least interested in supporting these kinds of pointless > differences. > > The people who are interested in making the kernel compile well with > clang should care about the things that matter, not annoying people > with idiotic patches. > > So stop the idiotic patches. When clang actually adds _value_, that's > one thing. Right now it's just stupid noise. > > For some reason compiler people think that "more warnings are good". > No. They are not. More noise without any value is absolutely not good, > and an unused inline function si by definition not something we care > about. > > Really. Fit the clang noise. Get clang to generate good code. > > Once clang has actually proven itself, and we haev years of clang > under our belt, and clang isn't just a toy and a source of bugs and > pointless warnings as far as kernel builds are concerned, THEN we can > start talking about actually making use of clang features. > > Right now it should be about "don't be a f*cking pain in the arse!" >
Personally, I don't find the unused static inline function warning that helpful either. But the only worry I have to totally ignoring them, is that they could contain buggy code, which may either be cut-and-pasted into code that is used, or one day used, and then inject buggy code.
But other than that, I pretty much agree with your assessment on this one.
-- Steve
| |