From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ron minnich To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [9fans] Re: [Etherboot-developers] __unused in arch/i386/include/hooks.h (fwd) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:21:44 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: bc45e3d6-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 given the ongoing discussion of C extensions, I thought this one was a beaut. ron ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:32:23 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Brown To: Etherboot Subject: Re: [Etherboot-developers] __unused in arch/i386/include/hooks.h (fwd) Forgot to post this to the list, sorry. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:00:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Brown To: Georg Baum Subject: Re: [Etherboot-developers] __unused in arch/i386/include/hooks.h > Does the __unused attribute in > void arch_main ( struct Elf_Bhdr * __unused ); > in arch/i386/include/hooks.h have any influence on the generated code? > I ask because gcc 2.95 does not compile this. It seems that __unused is only > allowed for function definitions and not declarations. Therefore I would > like to remove the __unused attribute. I added that recently in order to remove an unnecessary compiler warning. I don't see any problem with removing it from the declaration; I assume that having it present in the definition will serve to inhibit the warning. Michael ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Etherboot-developers mailing list Etherboot-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/etherboot-developers