On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Eric Engestrom wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 01:38:18PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > Maybe say you you found it (llvm, sparse, coccinelle?), and why this > > is causing a problem for anyone. If it's just unnecessary but not > > harmful, I'd probably ignore the patch. > > $ grep -rE '(^|\W)const(\s+\w+)+\s+const\s' > > I just happened to notice some unnecessary const in our internal code, > so I grep'ed for it in a couple big OSS projects to see how common it > was. Since I found only a few, I decided to remove them, but like I said > it just gets ignored by all the compilers I know, so there's absolutely > no harm in leaving this dead code around. Beware. I added many of those exactly because gcc did not ignore them when compiling with LTO where the lack of a const qualifier to qualify the actual array content, and not only the reference to that content, generated build errors due to section mismatches from the __initconst annotation. So this is a NAK from me unless you may confirm that LTO builds are unaffected by your changes. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
