Re: const versus __attribute__((const))

From: Arnd Bergmann (arnd_at_arndb.de)
Date: 12/08/03

  • Next message: Stephan von Krawczynski: "Re: 2.4.23 hard lock, 100% reproducible." 
    To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:46:42 +0100

    H. Peter Anvin writes:
    > I have made a patch against the current tree defining
    > __attribute_const__ in <linux/compiler.h> and using it in the above
    > cases; does anyone know any reason why I should *NOT* submit this to
    > Linus?

    I noticed before that gcc appearantly ignores __attribute__((const))
    for inline functions, so both the original and your proposed code
    is rather pointless as an optimization, except for extern declarations.

    I'd rather remove the 'const' completely where it causes warnings for
    inline functions.

            Arnd <><

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: Stephan von Krawczynski: "Re: 2.4.23 hard lock, 100% reproducible."

    Relevant Pages