Eric Auger <eric.au...@linaro.org> writes: > 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.
It's a valid concern although I think in this case your patches are fairly well contained. > 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 ;-) It's OK, there is often dark compromise involved in keeping the compiler gods happy - as long as it compiles clean ;-) > > Thanks for your time! > > Regards > > Eric >> >>> >>> thanks >>> -- PMM >> >> >> -- >> Alex Bennée >> -- Alex Bennée
