[m-rev.] for review: deconstruct.named_arg for java

[Zoltan Somogyi]

On 14-Jul-2010, Ian MacLarty <maclarty at csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> >> That doesn't appear to solve the problem.  The function is actually
> >> used.  What is needed is a "defined" attribute to convince gcc that
> >> the function is actually defined.
> >
> > Since the state of things as they were before all this started actually
> > worked, I think gcc was sufficiently convinced already.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean.  As far as I know gcc 4.x has always
> emitted these warnings for the code generated in asm_fast.gc.

Yes, but it generated code that assumed that the function was defined,
and defined statically, which is all we need for correctness. The warnings
are another issue. The fact that they are still there even if we give the
unused attribute is a bit strange, since it seems to contradict the documented
meaning of the attribute.

Zoltan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-reviews at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-reviews at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-reviews-request at csse.unimelb.edu.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------