From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31463 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2005 17:22:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31354 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2005 17:22:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Jan 2005 17:22:05 -0000 Received: from zaretski (IGLD-83-130-209-29.inter.net.il [83.130.209.29]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id AKK14509 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:21:23 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:22:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Baurzhan Ismagulov Message-ID: <01c50626$Blat.v2.4$9214fca0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20050129154549.GA9491@radix50.net> (message from Baurzhan Ismagulov on Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:45:49 +0100) Subject: Re: i18n, part 3 Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20050119222228.GA17540@radix50.net> <01c4ff34$Blat.v2.4$9e7d2380@zahav.net.il> <20050129154549.GA9491@radix50.net> X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00298.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:45:49 +0100 > From: Baurzhan Ismagulov > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 11:10:31PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Is the following declaration near the end of ax-gdb.c unnecessary? > > > > > > void _initialize_ax_gdb (void); > > > > No, it isn't unnecessary (under certain command-line options, GCC will > > whine if it sees a function definition without a prototype anywhere in > > scope). > > Do you mean -Wmissing-prototypes? If the goal is to detect API functions > not declared in headers, then I'm not sure whether this human work can > be done by the compiler. Apparently, for some reason this function > doesn't need to be declared in the header. What is the point using this > option, then? I think we want our sources to compile under any combination of the "-Wsomething" options, even the most paranoiac ones. > > Should we have an i18n comment here explaining what's a pcb? (You did > > that elsewhere in the patch.) > > Hmm, I thought one time would suffice. But ok, let's create a luxurious > messages file this time :) . Thanks, your new version is okay with me.