Houston, we have warnings.

Rob Landley 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.

> -Samrobb

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 mailing list