From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>, Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch rfc] -Wmissing-prototypes round #3
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:47:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1030611234725.ZM27464@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> "Re: [patch rfc] -Wmissing-prototypes round #3" (Jun 11, 3:24pm)
On Jun 11, 3:24pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >> - move function declarations to CPU-tdep.h, from config/CPU/tm-CPU.h
> >> Ex, m68k's delta68 functions previously in tm-delta.h.
> >> This ensures that the function declaration is always visible, and that a
> >> global function in CPU-tdep.c has its declaration in the corresponding
> >> CPU-tdep.h file. The config/CPU/tm-CPU.h files were also updated to
> >> include the corresponding "CPU-tdep.h".
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure whether this part of your patch is a good idea. Quite a
> > number of function declarations in config/CPU/tm-CPU.h are for things
> > that haven't been multi-arched yet. Keeping the function declaration
> > next to the #define that uses them, makes it easier to remove them
> > once they're no longer needed.
>
> I thought someone might comment, that's why I tried to make what was
> happening very clear :-)
>
> It's a real trade off.
>
> -- delay -Wmissing-prototypes until multi-arch is finished
>
> -- move the declarations so that they are always visible
>
> -- drop -Werror for certain architectures
>
> Given the problems that -Wmissing-prototypes has thrown up (extern in
> .c, forgetting to include .h), I'd prefer to see it enabled.
>
> Also note the number of *-tdep.c functions I make static. It's pretty
> clear that people deleting the #define/declaration consistently forget
> to update the corresponding function definition.
>
> I think a better way of handling these stray global declarations would
> be to use some sort of real code analysis tool (which the ari isn't :-).
I happen to agree with Mark on this, but I'm also sympathetic to Andrew's
desire to get -Wmissing-prototypes going.
As a compromise, I suggest moving the function declarations as Andrew
proposes, but also putting a pointer (comment) to the (new) location
of the declaration along with a reminder to remove it and make it
static when the function is question is finally multiarched.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-06-11 23:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-06-11 17:43 Andrew Cagney
2003-06-11 18:56 ` Mark Kettenis
2003-06-11 19:25 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-06-11 23:47 ` Kevin Buettner [this message]
2003-06-11 20:31 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-06-11 20:59 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-06-11 23:30 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-06-12 14:30 ` Richard Earnshaw
2003-06-12 17:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-06-13 14:13 ` Richard Earnshaw
2003-06-13 19:40 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-06-12 18:08 ` Andrew Cagney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1030611234725.ZM27464@localhost.localdomain \
--to=kevinb@redhat.com \
--cc=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=kettenis@chello.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox