On 12/09/2024 14:28, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> 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?
That question is moot, since the source file / header file
convention exists only _before_ the preprocessor runs.
If you meant to ask
"How is the implementation supposed to track the origin",
then I would hand wave and say "internal annotations".
