On 24 June 2014 05:24, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I think I would be happier if you changed the functions to not be marked as
> "inline". I think that there's a large body of code that marks things inline
> exactly to prevent unused warnings with gcc. If we're going to play with the
> ifdeffery,
On 06/23/2014 04:01 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> These patchsets fix clang 3.4 warnings about unused static inline
> functions (clang now warns about these if they're defined in a
> .c file but then not used; gcc doesn't). The first patch just
> removes two totally unused functions; the second two pa
These patchsets fix clang 3.4 warnings about unused static inline
functions (clang now warns about these if they're defined in a
.c file but then not used; gcc doesn't). The first patch just
removes two totally unused functions; the second two patches
use ifdeffery to avoid defining the functions i
These patchsets fix clang 3.4 warnings about unused static inline
functions (clang now warns about these if they're defined in a
.c file but then not used; gcc doesn't). The first patch just
removes two totally unused functions; the second two patches
use ifdeffery to avoid defining the functions i
