On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 07:36:21PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > GCC and Clang have different policy for -Wunused-function; GCC never > reports unused-function warnings for 'static inline' functions whereas > Clang reports them if they are defined in source files instead of > included headers although it has been suppressed since commit > abb2ea7dfd82 ("compiler, clang: suppress warning for unused static > inline functions"). > > We often miss to remove unused functions where 'static inline' is used > in .c files since there is no tool to detect them. Unused code remains > until somebody notices. For example, commit 075ddd75680f ("regulator: > core: remove unused rdev_get_supply()"). > > Let's remove __maybe_unused from the inline macro to allow Clang to > start finding unused static inline functions. As always, it is not a > good idea to sprinkle warnings for the normal build, so I added > -Wno-unsued-function for no W= build. > > Per the documentation [1], -Wno-unused-function will also disable > -Wunneeded-internal-declaration, which can help find bugs like > commit 8289c4b6f2e5 ("platform/x86: mlx-platform: Properly use > mlxplat_mlxcpld_msn201x_items"). (pointed out by Nathan Chancellor) > I added -Wunneeded-internal-declaration to address it. > > If you contribute to code clean-up, please run "make CC=clang W=1" > and check -Wunused-function warnings. You will find lots of unused > functions. > > Some of them are false-positives because the call-sites are disabled > by #ifdef. I do not like to abuse the inline keyword for suppressing > unused-function warnings because it is intended to be a hint for the > compiler's optimization. I prefer __maybe_unused or #ifdef around the > definition. > > [1]: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#wunused-function > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> I am still not a big fan of this as I think it weakens clang as a standalone compiler but the change itself looks good so if it is going in anyways: Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx> I'm sure Nick would like to weigh in as well before this gets merged.