From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15715 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2006 18:01:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 15707 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jul 2006 18:01:46 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:01:41 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k6HI17js032504; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:01:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6HI16x1031441; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:01:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k6HI16st032441; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:01:06 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:01:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200607171801.k6HI16st032441@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: denis.pilat@st.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20060717134358.GA10443@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:43:58 -0400) Subject: Re: [cosmetic-patch] missing declaration in monitor.c References: <44BB751B.10608@st.com> <20060717123228.GA8764@nevyn.them.org> <44BB877C.1050003@st.com> <20060717134358.GA10443@nevyn.them.org> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-07/txt/msg00209.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:43:58 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 02:50:05PM +0200, Denis PILAT wrote: > > No I don't need them. > > While reading the code I found that they were missing because all other > > static function are declared. > > I'm wondering why you remove only these 2 one ? Most of static functions > > are not used before beeing defined. > > I removed those two because I was changing them - the old ones were > wrong. It's a bit of work to make sure that a prototype isn't > necessary. But you're encouraged to remove redundant prototypes if you happen to see them ;-). Mark