Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 23:28:12 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, phk@critter.tfs.com Cc: current@freebsd.org, imb@scgt.oz.au, julian@ref.tfs.com, terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: changes in -current..TEST please Message-ID: <199512071228.XAA08175@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Why not initialize a pointer to the function? Then the function address >> _is_ used provided the pointer doesn't go away. Why does the comma >> expression end with an 0 anyway? The following seems to work right >> (except it wastes a pointer): >> >> static void (*const foo)(void) = dummy_cleanup; >Well, what would prevent gcc from going > foo isn't used, zap it. > now dummy_cleanup isn't used, zap it. >? Nothing except conventions. There has to be a convention to stop it removing rcsid strings, etc. gcc's conventions seem to be that static static data is never removed but static non-const data is warned about. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512071228.XAA08175>