On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 02:14:10PM GMT, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> On 12/09/2024 13:15, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2024, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> >> On 11/09/2024 12:23, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2024, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> >>>> On 10/09/2024 16:51, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 01:03:43PM GMT, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >>>>>> See also commit 6863f5643dd7 ("kbuild: allow Clang to find unused static
> >>>>>> inline functions for W=1 build").
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>> GCC doesn't catch unused static inlines, while Clang does.
> >>
> >> It makes no sense to me that adding "inline" would prevent
> >> GCC from diagnosing the issue... GCC should simply ignore
> >> the "inline" keyword when definition is not in a header file
> >> (maybe they don't store "origin").
> >
> > Please just read the commit message for the commit I reference above for
> > details. There's not much more I could say about it.
>
> OK, I read 6863f5643dd7.
>
> My remark still stands.
>
> GCC's decision to not warn for unused static inline functions
> in source files (not headers) is questionable at best.
What's the difference between source file and a header after the CPP
run?
> (For the record, I think clang is the devil's spawn.)
>
> Regards
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
