From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: additional GCC warnings |
Date: | 2004-10-18 02:03:06 |
Message-ID: | 15908.1098064986@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
>>> -Wmissing-declarations ("Warn if a global function is defined without a
>>> previous declaration.")
>>
>> Hm? We have always used that one.
> We've always used -Wmissing-prototypes.
We've always used both. See Makefile.global.in:
ifeq ($(GCC), yes)
CFLAGS += -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations
endif
> ... Which doesn't make the difference in behavior between the two options
> clear to me. Can anyone clarify this?
Hmm, it looks like -Wmissing-prototypes may be a superset of
-Wmissing-declarations --- it seems to say that the latter will be
content with a K&R style declaration ("extern int foo();") but the
former will not. If that's a correct reading then we could drop
-Wmissing-declarations.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2004-10-18 03:01:15 | Re: additional GCC warnings |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-18 01:53:43 | Re: spinlocks: generalizing "non-locking test" |