On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Patrick Palka <patr...@parcs.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Richard Biener
> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Patrick Palka <patr...@parcs.ath.cx> wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> This patch wraps a bunch of locally-used, non-debug functions in an
>>> anonymous namespace. These functions can't simply be marked as "static"
>>> because they are used as template arguments to hash_table::traverse, and
>>> the C++98 standard does not allow non-extern variables to be used as
>>> template arguments. The next best thing to marking them static is to
>>> define each of these functions inside an anonymous namespace.
>>
>> Hum, the formatting used looks super-ugly. I suppose a local visibility
>> attribute would work as well? (well, what's the goal of the patch?)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard.
>
> The goal of this patch is to resolve warnings emitted by
> -Wmissing-declarations for the GCC sources. Later I would like to
> propose adding -Wmissing-declarations to GCC's build flags, but I
> figured that these kinds of cleanup patches are good on their own.
>
> I don't think a local visibility attribute would squelch the
> -Wmissing-declaration warnings. Is there a better/standardized format
> for defining a function within an anonymous namespace? I personally
> don't think the formatting is too bad.
Existing uses at least add vertical spacing after namespace { and before
the corresponding closing }, adding // anon namespace after that.
Thus the patch is ok with that style change.
Thanks,
Richard.
