On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 3:30 PM Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > Pages of warnings is not ideal, though. We should either support > "SH_SCOPE static", or have some kind of useful #error that makes it > clear that we don't support it (and/or don't think it's a good idea).
Fair. > > I'm not sure that I like the idea of just ignoring the > > warnings, for fear that the compiler might not actually remove the > > code for the unused functions from the resulting binary. But I'm not > > an expert in this area either, so maybe I'm wrong. > > In a simple "hello world" test with an unreferenced static function, it > doesn't seem to be a problem at -O2. I suppose it could be with some > compiler somewhere, or perhaps in a more complex scenario, but it would > seem strange to me. OK. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
