Hi Alex, On 12/17/2015 04:13 PM, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > >> On 17 December 2015 at 13:28, Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> Usually I would expect to see a pre-declaration of a function at the >>> head of the file and only if it is used before the actual definition of >>> the function. It doesn't make sense to pre-declare right before the >>> actual function definition itself. >>> >>> I'm surprised to hear the compiler complained, especially as nothing was >>> calling this function in this patch. >> >> The compiler complains if it sees a function which is not static >> and for which it hasn't previously seen a prototype, because >> generally this means that either (a) the function is file-local >> only and should have been declared static or (b) the function is >> not file-local but you forgot to put a prototype in a header so >> that other files can call it. (This is -Wmissing-prototypes.) > > > Ahh I see now. I guess if its declared static in this patch and not > used its going to complain about an unused function as well? Maybe that > suggests the patch should just be merged with patch where it is actually > used?
my fear is that it becomes too big for review then. I suggest we wait for other comments and I will follow the consensus if any. I just wanted to emphasize I did not ignore your comment but I just don't know how to handle it at best ;-) Thanks for your time! Regards Eric > >> >> thanks >> -- PMM > > > -- > Alex Bennée >
