Houston, we have warnings.
rob at landley.net
Fri Dec 16 06:49:32 UTC 2005
On Thursday 15 December 2005 12:21, Sam Robb wrote:
> Or are more recent versions of
> gcc just slightly less blitheringly stupid than their ancestors?
That's probably it. The version I tested (don't remember if it was 3.3 or
3.2) was doing it. I know they were revamping this area in 3.4 (all that
unit at a time stuff was related).
This is another reason I wanted to hold off on the ENABLE_ conversion, because
if we can say "use gcc 4.0 for smallest code size" then we don't have to
#ifdef out static functions.
Right now, gcc 3.4 and up are too new to even recommend them, but for 1.2 as
long as we _work_ on 3.3, we don't necessarily have to produce the smallest
possible code there.
Steve Ballmer: Innovation! Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
More information about the busybox