On Sun, 2013-11-24 at 12:28 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Well, sparse is clearly "right", for all it cares it might very well be > > static, but it seems this is necessary for something in the kernel and > > we clearly can't forward-declare it in a header file. Perhaps we can add > > some annotation to say > > "__attribute__((yes_I_know_but_really_dont_want_this_to_be_static))" to > > suppress this warning? This is getting annoying to me as well :-) > > We could do something like > > typeof(foo); > > in the macro. Not sure if that would make sparse happy. I wouldn't think so, after all that's just using the symbol, not declaring it, and using it clearly happens all the time. I only see an annotation as a solution, which is ugly but this crops up everywhere and makes sparse output pretty much unreadable. > Also this is really working around a problem upto gcc 4.8. that was fixed > in gcc 4.9 (adding numerical postfixes to all symbols) If it's ok to > let LTO only support 4.9+ the patches could be reverted. That I can't comment on. :) johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
