On Monday 06 February 2012 16:44:36 Troy Kisky wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 1:57 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 06 February 2012 15:17:32 Troy Kisky wrote:
> >> On 2/6/2012 12:07 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Monday 06 February 2012 13:48:13 Troy Kisky wrote:
> >>>> On 2/4/2012 8:38 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday 04 February 2012 22:02:46 Troy Kisky wrote:
> >>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -static struct phy_driver BCM5461S_driver = {
> >>>>>> +struct phy_driver BCM5461S_driver __phy_entry = {
> >>>>>
> >>>>> why do you have to remove the static ? that shouldn't affect the
> >>>>> section name that it gets placed into.
> >>>>
> >>>> I had static to start. But the compiler ate all of the code. No
> >>>> references to any of the static symbols.
> >>>
> >>> sounds like you should change the __phy_entry define from "unused" to
> >>> "used"
> >>
> >> The would give me compiler warnings for unused variables. How does that
> >> help?
> >
> > does gcc issue warnings ? doesn't seem to do so for me.
> >
> >> Is there a keep attribute like the linker has for sections?
> >
> > yes, __attribute__((used))
>
> Thanks, since the gcc manual I was using didn't list used, I thought you
> merely meant to
> remove unused.
>
> Seems the gcc version 4.1.2 does not list this option while 4.2.4 does.
>
> What level of compiler is required ?in looking at how Linux does things, you should include linux/compiler.h and then utilize __maybe_unused rather than specifying the attribute yourself -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
