From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 36827 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2020 07:06:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 36819 invoked by uid 89); 12 Jan 2020 07:06:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 07:06:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA70B1176A2; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 02:06:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id YmPJTWL3nRAE; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 02:06:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF1A1173A6; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 02:06:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F20B382B84; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:06:46 +0400 (+04) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 08:13:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Enable -Wmissing-declarations diagnostic Message-ID: <20200112070646.GA24158@adacore.com> References: <20200110220027.26450-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <87d0bqexxj.fsf@tromey.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87d0bqexxj.fsf@tromey.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-SW-Source: 2020-01/txt/msg00302.txt.bz2 > I read through the series. > > I think this warning would be good to have, because it can help detect > bugs. A small bonus is that this warning should also help us detect functions that could be declared static. Not a huge deal in terms of code correctness, but a valuable piece of information, when one is reading through the code... > It's maybe mildly unfortunate that we have to have the first > patch, but at the same time it's not that much noise in the end -- just > an extra line (typically) near the end of a file. The other patches all > seem desirable on their own terms. > > So, I think you should check it in. +1 -- Joel