On 16 Feb 2014, at 04:09, Bruce Evans wrote:
> [a long list of corner cases where the warning may not be correct]
Fortunately, the goal of compiler warnings is not to address every possible
case, but rather to minimise false positives while still giving useful results.
The warning can be turn
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, David Chisnall wrote:
On 15 Feb 2014, at 17:02, Bruce Evans wrote:
Why? There are hundreds if not thousands of static inline functions in
headers, and most of these functions are not always used, so there would
be [hundreds if not thousands] * [number of #includes] compi
On 15 Feb 2014, at 17:02, Bruce Evans wrote:
> Why? There are hundreds if not thousands of static inline functions in
> headers, and most of these functions are not always used, so there would
> be [hundreds if not thousands] * [number of #includes] compiler warnings
> if compilers warned about
On 15 Feb 2014, at 18:02, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Dimitry Andric wrote:
...
> Why? There are hundreds if not thousands of static inline functions in
> headers, and most of these functions are not always used, so there would
> be [hundreds if not thousands] * [number of #includes
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Log:
In sys/dev/xen/console/console.c, #if 0 an unused static function.
MFC after: 3 days
Modified:
head/sys/dev/xen/console/console.c
Modified: head/sys/dev/xen/console/console.c
===
