On 07/13/2011 07:42 AM, Matthias Bolte wrote:
2011/7/9 Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>:
The compiler might optimize based on our declaration that something is unused.
Can this actually happen? The unused marker only says that something _might_ be unused. I don't think that a compiler can optimize something based on this when it cannot actually prove that it is really unused.
Hmm, given gcc's documentation that it is a 'might' be unused, then yeah, gcc shouldn't do premature optimizations on the caller side. But better safe than sorry.
Putting that declaration in the header risks getting out of sync with the actual implementation, so it belongs better only in the .c files. We were mostly compliant, and a new syntax check will help us in the future.
This is a valid point.
Consistency is a good argument, even if the argument for (lack of) compiler optimizations is weak in this case :)
ACK.
I've now applied 25, 26, and 28. Expect a v3 later today which fixes the fallout comments on the remaining patches. -- Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org