Re: Conding style question regarding configuration

[Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>]

On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 12:16, Pascal Van Leeuwen
<pvanleeuwen@insidesecure.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Yes. Code and data with static linkage will just be optimized away by
> > >> the compiler if the CONFIG_xx option is not enabled, so all you need
> > >> to guard are the actual statements, function calls etc.
> > >>
> > > Ok, makes sense. Then I'll just config out the relevant function bodies
> > > and assume the compiler will do the rest ...
> > >
> >
> > No need to config out function bodies when they are static.
> >
> Well, I got a complaint from someone that my driver updates for adding PCIE
> support wouldn't  compile properly on a platform without a PCI(E) subsystem.
> So I figure I do have to config out the references to PCI specific function
> calls to fix that.
>
> Or are you just referring to bodies of static subfunctions that are no
> longer being called? Would the compiler skip those entirely?
>

The idea is that, by doing something like

static int bar;

static void foo(void)
{
    bar = 1;
}

if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FOO))
    foo();

the function foo() or the variable bar don't have to be decorated with
#ifdefs or anything. The compiler will not complain that they are
unused if CONFIG_FOO is not enabled, and the contents of foo() are
always visible to the compiler, and so any programming errors will be
caught regardless of whether CONFIG_FOO is set.