[openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- From: "Philippe Houdoin" <philippe.houdoin@xxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:39:04 GMT
Andrew said:
> Here's an example:
> > There's a function called control_hook. It is defined in a
> > prototype
> prior to its use in device_hooks. Since control_hook actually
> performs a number of different behaviors, depending on the
> argument, each was broken out into a separate function, which was
> defined before control_hook. No other functions are going to call
> these functions, so there's really no point to define prototypes for
> them in the header or anywhere else.
+
> But this seems really stupid. Does anyone have a strong argument for
> preserving this warning?
> Perhaps there is an alternative warning we could use instead?
For such case, aka static/local to module functions, prefixing them
with "static", as it should have been BTW ;-),
will silence the compiler.
When we change to "all warnings" setup, I've done it in several places
of network drivers and modules to silence compiler.
> Or perhaps we could at least
> remove it from CCFLAGS and keep it for C++FLAGS?
I'm not for a solution *solving* warnings generation, I'm for solution
fixing the warning *origin*.
Compiler is your friend. Most of the time.
That's true for warnings too.
- Philippe
--
Fortune Cookie Says:
You have the body of a 19 year old. Please return it before it gets
wrinkled.
Other related posts:
