| To: | Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS removal of #define STATIC static |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 23 Oct 2002 05:22:15 +0200 |
| Cc: | fdavis@xxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1035342569.1086.39.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <3DB61153.3010509@xxxxxxxxx> <1035342569.1086.39.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.22.1i |
> The only reason I can think of needing this is for symbol tables > in debuggers - and trying to keep some semblance of the same > code base between Irix and Linux. Not sure if we really have > a debugger setup on linux where being able to turn off static > helps to be honest, does a gdb symbol table include static > functions? It used to help with old kdb (which didn't know about static functions). But since CONFIG_KALLSYMS was implemented this is obsolete. gdb should always know about static functions too. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: PATCH: sleeping while holding a lock in _pagebuf_free_bh()::page_buf.c, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | TAKE - minor portability change, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS removal of #define STATIC static, Stephen Lord |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS removal of #define STATIC static, Keith Owens |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |