[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

Other related posts: