Hi Paul,
On 4/28/24 4:27 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> For test cases this is more a judgment call, but I prefer doing either
> the above or adjusting the warning flags, to ignoring warnings, as the
> other warnings can be useful at time.
Yeah, I could see these warnings making it hard to see ones tha
On 2024-04-28 04:03, Collin Funk wrote:
I will listen to the Makefile and*ignore* them now, or disable them
if they start annoying me. :)
Another possibility is to make each such variable 'static' if it's OK to
make it static, and to precede every other variable declaration like this:
int f
Hi Bruno,
On 4/28/24 3:11 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
>> Can I apply the attached patch which adds the 'static' specifier to
>> global variables in unit tests?
>
> No! While adding 'static' would be no harm in some tests (such as
> tests/jit/test-cache.c, tests/test-argp-version-etc.c, tests/test-arg
Hi Collin,
> Can I apply the attached patch which adds the 'static' specifier to
> global variables in unit tests?
No! While adding 'static' would be no harm in some tests (such as
tests/jit/test-cache.c, tests/test-argp-version-etc.c, tests/test-argp.c),
in other tests the purpose of the global
7 00:00:00 2001
From: Collin Funk
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 23:37:38 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Pacify -Wmissing-variable-declarations in unit tests.
* tests/jit/test-cache.c: Add a static specifier to global variables.
* tests/minus-zero.h: Likewise.
* tests/test-acos.c: Likewise.
* tests/test-acosf.c: Li
