On 2024-09-15 02:25, Bruno Haible wrote:
it can happen that you add the attribute in order to placate one GCC
version
and then another GCC version complains that you should not have added it.
Yes, and if memory serves older GCC versions were pretty bad about this,
and that caused me
Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> Agreed. However since there are more than 50 static functions marked pure in
> C files already, and this seems to be the only missed compiler warning in GCC
> 14.2, I thought you were favoring the absence of warning.
We added these attributes before we realized that
- i
Bruno Haible writes:
> No, thanks. This is a 'static' function. It is a waste of time for us
> developers to add attributes in order to declare information that GCC
> has already found out by itself.
Agreed. However since there are more than 50 static functions marked pure in C
files already, a
Hi,
Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> diff --git a/lib/readutmp.c b/lib/readutmp.c
> index 0938a094cb..fd84a1e4de 100644
> --- a/lib/readutmp.c
> +++ b/lib/readutmp.c
> @@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ finish_utmp (struct utmp_alloc a)
>
> /* Determine whether A already contains an entry of type BOOT_TIME. */
> _GL
* lib/readutmp.c (have_boot_time): Mark the function with _GL_ATTRIBUTE_PURE.
GCC 14.2.0 complains about it missing when compiling GNU coreutils.
---
ChangeLog | 5 +
lib/readutmp.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index 2b35fe29
* lib/readutmp.c (have_boot_time): Mark the function with _GL_ATTRIBUTE_PURE.
GCC 14.2.0 complains about it missing when compiling GNU coreutils.
---
ChangeLog | 5 +
lib/readutmp.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index 2b35fe29
