Hello Albert,
On 05-07-14 15:21, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
(sorry for the near-duplicate, and see question at end)
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 13:36:47 +0200, Jeroen Hofstee jeroen@myspectrum.nl wrote:
Hello Albert,
On za, 2014-07-05 at 11:13 +0200, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 23:10:39 +0200, Jeroen Hofstee jeroen@myspectrum.nl wrote:
When compiling u-boot with W=1 the extern inline void for read* is likely causing the most noise. gcc / clang will warn there is never a actual declaration for these functions. Instead of declaring these extern make them static inline so it is actually declared.
cc: Albert ARIBAUD albert.u.boot@aribaud.net Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee jeroen@myspectrum.nl
Ok, so the obvious question: what makes you decide to switch to 'static inline' rather than provide the extern versions that 'extern static' calls for?
Assuming your question is, why didn't you just add the prototypes instead?
It was more along the lines of "were you aware that you had a choice there?"
yes I was aware of that.
Well if we wanted to be brave gnu99 citizens we should provide the prototypes, the extern inline version and a separated definition in case the compiler fails / is not in the mood to inline the function. This quite fragile / some housekeeping. Furthermore it is gnu specific and likely fails with gcc -std=c99 as well.
Making them static inline there is always a single definition and it is up to the compiler to either inline it or make it a static function by it self. Since we were already relying on the compiler to inline it (at least I am unaware that there are non inline version around), this boils down to the same thing, but without warnings.
And... I can likely drop this one as well[1], although I haven't checked yet. linux does the same btw for __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 6.
I can check binary size if that something you wonder about...
As I said, I have no stance on whether 'static inline' or 'extern inline' was better / more appropriate / other (please specify). I just wanted to make sure that you had considered both possibilities before choosing one of them. I am now assured that you have, so all is fine.
ok
Regards, Jeroen
[1] https://github.com/jhofstee/u-boot/commit/5cd261fecc5397bf5abef82f6a781d8b04...
Which board do you get warnings for?
Basically any, but as the commit message says, it is just for removing warnings when building with `make W=1` or clang (which actually errors, without the other patch). There is no hurry in applying it. But e.g. for the twister I am sure you will see them, with the additional warnings enabled.
Regards, Jeroen