> There are several places in hotspot where an internal function should have 
> been declared static, but isn't. 
> 
> These were discovered by trying to use the gcc option 
> `-Wmissing-declarations` and the corresponding clang option 
> `-Wmissing-prototypes`. These warnings check that a function either:
> a) is declared static, or
> b) has a declaration before its definition. 
> 
> The rationale of this is that functions are either internal to a compilation 
> unit, or exported to be linked by some other compilation unit. In the former 
> case, it should be marked static. In the latter case, it should be declared 
> in a header file, which should be included by the implementation as well. If 
> there is a discrepancy between the exported prototype and the implemented 
> prototype, this will be discovered during compilation (instead of as a 
> runtime error). Additionally, marking internal methods as static allows the 
> compiler to make better optimization, like inlining.
> 
> This seem to be to be a sane assumption, and I think Hotspot (and the entire 
> JDK) would increase code quality by turning on these warnings. The absolute 
> majority of the code already adheres to these rules, but there are still some 
> places that needs to be fixed.
> 
> This is the first part of addressing these issues, where all places that are 
> trivially missing static are fixed.
> 
> I have discovered these by running with the warnings mentioned above turned 
> on. I have filtered out those places were an export was obviously missing. 
> The remaining warnings I have manually inspected. About 1/4 of them were 
> *_init() functions (which are directly declared in `init.cpp`) and another 
> 1/4 were documented as "use in debugger"; these I have not touched. I also 
> ignored functions with names suggesting it might be used in the debugger, 
> even if not documented as such, or any places that even seemed remotely 
> non-trivial. Finally I also reverted a few changes after it turned out that 
> gcc complained about unused functions. These places are actually dead code, 
> but it is not clear if they should be removed or if there is actually a call 
> missing somewhere (I believe it is a mix of both). In any case, I did not 
> want any such complexities in this PR.
> 
> When the functions where marked static, gcc started complaining if they were 
> not used, since it consider it dead code. To address this, I had to add or 
> fix some `#ifdef`s. Since this code were not actually used unless these 
> criteria were fulfilled before either (it was just not discovered by the 
> compiler), I thi...

Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request incrementally with two 
additional commits since the last revision:

 - Revert spurious changes in non-modified file
 - Fix indentation issues

-------------

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17806/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17806/files/97595a3e..9702d84a

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=17806&range=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=17806&range=00-01

  Stats: 32 lines in 13 files changed: 3 ins; 0 del; 29 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17806.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/17806/head:pull/17806

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17806

Reply via email to