[Bug bootstrap/91972] Bootstrap should use -Wmissing-declarations

2023-09-10 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|easyhack| --- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---

[Bug bootstrap/91972] Bootstrap should use -Wmissing-declarations

2021-11-30 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||easyhack --- Comment #8 from Eric

[Bug bootstrap/91972] Bootstrap should use -Wmissing-declarations

2021-11-30 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972 --- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov --- As I understand, only the gcc subdirectory changed implementation language from C to C++, so, yes (as far as this bug is concerned).

[Bug bootstrap/91972] Bootstrap should use -Wmissing-declarations

2021-11-29 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972 --- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager --- To clarify, are we talking about adding it just in the gcc subdirectory, or any other subdirectories as well?

[Bug bootstrap/91972] Bootstrap should use -Wmissing-declarations

2020-06-07 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972 --- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #4) > > Why is it missing the static keyword then? (Or alternatively, why isn't it > > in an anonymous namespace?) > > Huh? Without the warning developers may

[Bug bootstrap/91972] Bootstrap should use -Wmissing-declarations

2020-05-05 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov --- > Why is it missing the static keyword then? (Or alternatively, why isn't it in > an anonymous namespace?) Huh? Without the warning developers may simply forget to put the 'static' keyword. With the

[Bug bootstrap/91972] Bootstrap should use -Wmissing-declarations

2020-05-05 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0) > > Transition to C++ did not change -Wmissing-prototypes to > > -Wmissing-declarations, so over time several

[Bug bootstrap/91972] Bootstrap should use -Wmissing-declarations

2020-05-05 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0) > Transition to C++ did not change -Wmissing-prototypes to > -Wmissing-declarations, so over time several violations crept in. In > particular this penalizes

[Bug bootstrap/91972] Bootstrap should use -Wmissing-declarations

2020-05-05 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972 --- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov --- Another reason to have -Wmissing-declarations is that otherwise mismatches of unused functions are not caught until it's too late (mismatching definition is assumed to be an overload of the function

[Bug bootstrap/91972] Bootstrap should use -Wmissing-declarations

2019-10-02 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|build | Status|UNCONFIRMED