Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

Diederik de Haas dixit: >and the patch proposed by Ben, more then 6 years ago, hasn't been merged. > >As I don't know the reason it wasn't closed last year, I won't do it, but >maybe it's time to finally close it? If the bug persists, it’s still a bug, so don’t close it. Prod them occasionally.

Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

On Saturday, 1 May 2021 14:02:33 CEST Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 06:14:18PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > 2011/7/29 Moritz Mühlenhoff : > > > We already asked you back in September 2009 to report this upstream. > > > > He did, precisely in September 2009: > > > > http

Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

hi, On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 06:14:18PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > 2011/7/29 Moritz Mühlenhoff : > > We already asked you back in September 2009 to report this upstream. > > He did, precisely in September 2009: > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14186 > > He still got no response

Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

2011/7/29 Moritz Mühlenhoff : > We already asked you back in September 2009 to report this upstream. He did, precisely in September 2009: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14186 He still got no response though. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lis

Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 07:09:37PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Ben Hutchings dixit: > > The use of __undefined in the BSDs predates use of it by > both Linux and GNU. (But when using this argumentation > style, we’d probably better take this upstream… except > that upstream may not be helping…

Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

Ben Hutchings dixit: >> Honestly, when resolving this I’d go for “who has the older >> rights”. Maybe look at how CSUR resolves different claims to >> the same part of the Unicode PUA, or something like that. >> Nevertheless, thanks on picking this up. > >Debian GNU/Linux is the older system; the

Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 18:24 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Robert Millan dixit: > > >I can see they wouldn't be excited about it, but they might also accept > > You know that there are more than one BSD, but only one glibc, > IIRC Drepper isn’t even its maintainer any more. According to

Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

Robert Millan dixit: >I can see they wouldn't be excited about it, but they might also accept You know that there are more than one BSD, but only one glibc, IIRC Drepper isn’t even its maintainer any more. Try persuading for example Theo de Raadt of anything which doesn’t have any immediate techn

Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

2011/6/18 Jonathan Nieder : > Hi Robert, > > Robert Millan wrote: > >> When it comes to __attibute__((__unused__)), it's just a matter of >> agreeing on whether to call it __attribute_unused__ or __unused. > > I don't agree.  It's perfectly fine for there to be multiple names > for the thing Provi

Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

Hi Robert, Robert Millan wrote: > When it comes to __attibute__((__unused__)), it's just a matter of > agreeing on whether to call it __attribute_unused__ or __unused. I don't agree. It's perfectly fine for there to be multiple names for the thing --- the task at hand is dividing up the __* nam

Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

It seems there are two traditions for attribute macros. The GNU one produced things like: #define __attribute_malloc__ __attribute__ ((__malloc__)) #define __attribute_pure__ __attribute__ ((__pure__)) #define __attribute_used__ __attribute__ ((__used__)) #define __attribute_noinline__ __attribut