@@ -67,14 +67,14 @@ struct cpu_job *__cpu_queue_job(struct cpu_thread *cpu,
return NULL;
}
-void __attrconst cpu_wait_job(struct cpu_job *job, bool free_it)
+void cpu_wait_job(struct cpu_job *job, bool free_it)
{
(void)job;
(void)free_it;
return;
}
-void __attrconst cpu_process_local_jobs(void)
+void cpu_process_local_jobs(void)
{
}
@@ -105,8 +105,7 @@ struct cpu_job *__cpu_queue_job(struct cpu_thread *cpu,
}
void cpu_wait_job(struct cpu_job *job, bool free_it);
-
-void __attrconst cpu_wait_job(struct cpu_job *job, bool free_it)
+void cpu_wait_job(struct cpu_job *job, bool free_it)
{
(void)job;
(void)free_it;
@@ -114,8 +113,7 @@ void __attrconst cpu_wait_job(struct cpu_job *job, bool free_it)
}
void cpu_process_local_jobs(void);
-
-void __attrconst cpu_process_local_jobs(void)
+void cpu_process_local_jobs(void)
{
}
Currently we get a warning because in some of the test stub functions: [ HOSTCC ] hw/test/phys-map-test.c In file included from hw/test/phys-map-test.c:8: hw/test/../../core/test/stubs.c:78:1: warning: ‘const’ attribute on function returning ‘void’ [-Wattributes] 78 | { | ^ I'm pretty sure we added that __attrconst to squash a warning with an earlier GCC, then they went an added a warning for the "fix." I love compilers. Signed-off-by: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com> --- core/test/stubs.c | 4 ++-- hdata/test/stubs.c | 6 ++---- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)