Re: mbuf initialization macros

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 02:53:49PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> There is no need to apologise for any of this - the prototype declarations
> are certainly not wrong, just unnecessary (probably ... upon further thought
> I am wondering if perhaps some compiler somewhere might complain about the
> existence of a static func definition (inline or not) which is included in
> a source file that does not use the func - and that might be what the __unused
> is for ... The gcc in current (5.3.0) and the one in NetBSD 7 (4.8.4) do
> not need it, but perhaps some earlier version?   (Or clang?)

Clang certainly has a warning under -Wall (IIRC) for unused static
functions, but it is also smart enough to filter out headers. I don't
see why __unused is helpful here.

Joerg