Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-170259-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 10:56:45 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>, Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@gmail.com>,
	kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
	oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] lib/test_bitops: Add benchmark test for fns()
Message-ID: <20240506175645.GB1425562@thelio-3990X>
References: <20240502092443.6845-2-visitorckw@gmail.com>
 <202405030808.UsoMKFNP-lkp@intel.com>
 <ZjQ/JOpcdgWZXo0y@visitorckw-System-Product-Name>
 <20240503041701.GA3660305@thelio-3990X>
 <ZjSSylciH+qJeEEG@visitorckw-System-Product-Name>
 <ZjSUk4vgsQ63wfcn@visitorckw-System-Product-Name>
 <20240503155401.GA3960118@thelio-3990X>
 <ZjVdbavKgDo8a0CZ@yury-ThinkPad>
 <CANiq72mYPV_rNFirr1q=hjjz2yDzw98qrwqY5c14G3odt+shcA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CANiq72mYPV_rNFirr1q=hjjz2yDzw98qrwqY5c14G3odt+shcA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 05, 2024 at 12:42:53PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 11:56 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > + * The __used attribute guarantees that the attributed variable will be
> 
> We should probably mention functions as Nathan said (unless it does
> not work for some reason).

Yeah, it should work for functions. I think clarifying it will not work
for local variables would probably be good as well, since __used__ does
not work on those like I replied in my other email, but it is not that
big of a deal.

> > + * is actually used. It's a compiler implementation details either emit
> > + * the warning in that case or not.
> 
> Is it an implementation detail or rather that they took different
> alternatives/options on purpose (even if not documented)? If we think
> it is just a consequence of their implementation, perhaps we should
> mention that and what GCC/Clang do today in their latest version, in
> case it changes (so that we know whether we need to remove the macro,
> for instance).

Yeah it is entirely possible that this is not intentional but when
-Wunused-but-set-variable was introduced in Clang, I know there was a
lot of discussion around making the warning match GCC in certain ways as
well as breaking from GCC in others. I have not tried to dig up those
discussions to confirm though.

Cheers,
Nathan