From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-83864-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4248 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2003 16:00:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 4238 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2003 16:00:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ops2.one-point.com) (216.234.116.146)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Oct 2003 16:00:10 -0000
Received: from localhost (jsturm@localhost)
	by ops2.one-point.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9CG0FK19061;
	Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:00:15 -0400
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:27:00 -0000
From: Jeff Sturm <jsturm@one-point.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: warning when a function's address is tested?
In-Reply-To: <20031012050523.486faa69.akpm@osdl.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310121156060.17784-100000@ops2.one-point.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00419.txt.bz2

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
> -	if (current_is_kswapd)
> +	if (current_is_kswapd())
>
> It was there for a year.  It is a fairly easy mistake to make, and it would
> be nice if the compiler could generate a warning.  I don't think there are
> likely to be legitimate uses?

One legitimate use is to test for undefined weak symbols.  That's not an
argument against the warning however... more often than not this is surely
a mistake.

Jeff