Hi David,
El Wed, May 24, 2017 at 01:36:21PM -0700 David Rientjes ha dit:
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-clang.h b/include/linux/compiler-clang.h
> > > index de179993e039..e1895ce6fa1b 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/compiler-clang.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/compiler-clang.h
> > > @@ -15,3 +15,8 @@
> > > * with any version that can compile the kernel
> > > */
> > > #define __UNIQUE_ID(prefix) __PASTE(__PASTE(__UNIQUE_ID_, prefix), __COUNTER__)
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef inline
> > > +#undef inline
> > > +#define inline __attribute__((unused))
> > > +#endif
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestion!
> >
> > Nothing breaks and the warnings are silenced. It seems we could use
> > this if there is a stong opposition against having warnings on unused
> > static inline functions in .c files.
> >
>
> It would be slightly different, it would be:
>
> #define inline inline __attribute__((unused))
>
> to still inline the functions, I was just seeing if there was anything
> else that clang was warning about that was unrelated to a function's
> inlining.
>
> > Still I am not convinced that gcc's behavior is preferable in this
> > case. True, it saves us from adding a bunch of __maybe_unused or
> > #ifdefs, on the other hand the warning is a useful tool to spot truly
> > unused code. So far about 50% of the warnings I looked into fall into
> > this category.
> >
>
> I think gcc's behavior is a result of how it does preprocessing and is a
> clearly defined and long-standing semantic given in the gcc manual
> regarding -Wunused-function.
>
> #define IS_PAGE_ALIGNED(__size) (!(__size & ((size_t)PAGE_SIZE - 1)))
> static inline int is_page_aligned(size_t size)
> {
> return !(size & ((size_t)PAGE_SIZE - 1));
> }
>
> Gcc will not warn about either of these being unused, regardless of -Wall,
> -Wunused-function, or -pedantic. Clang, correct me if I'm wrong, will
> only warn about is_page_aligned().
Indeed, clang does not warn about unused defines.
> So the argument could be made that one of the additional benefits of
> static inline functions is that a subset of compilers, heavily in the
> minority, will detect whether it's unused and we'll get patches that
> remove them. Functionally, it would only result in LOC reduction. But,
> isn't adding #ifdef's to silence the warning just adding more LOC?
The LOC reduction comes from the removal of the actual dead code that
is spotted because the warning was enabled and pointed it out :)
Using #ifdef is one option, in most cases the function can be marked as
__maybe_unused, which technically doesn't (necessarily) increase
LOC. However some maintainers prefer the use of #ifdef over
__maybe_unused in certain cases.
> I have no preference either way, I think it would be up to the person who
> is maintaining the code and has to deal with the patches.
I think it would be good to have a general policy/agreement, to either
disable the warning completely (not my preference) or 'allow' the use
of one of the available mechanism to suppress the warning for
functions that are not used in some configurations or only kept around
for reference/debugging/symmetry.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
