Alexander Stohr wrote: > > Good fix Felix. > > I do "hate" local function prototypes. > Its just bad coding style and laziness. > Further it shows a critical lack of > knowledge for the header file organisation. > > They are never verified against the > implementation by the compiler and > might be overseen rather quickly > when the function API gets modified. > > There is only one way of eliminating those flaws: > tuning the compiler warnings to a rather verbose > level and let the compiler consider them as errors. > > Just one question: > Would you (and the XFree86 and the kernel folks) > allow me to "rework" all your sources at that degree, > touching lots of code lines just to let the compiler > report a few more warnings? Most of them will relate > to constellations that are really not dangerous, and > this will possibly unveil not even a single bug at all > when compiling, possibly not now and not in any future.
I'm always happy to fix code that causes warnings. I routinely compile Mesa using gcc's most pedantic error/warning options. Occasionally compiling with g++ often produces even more warnings. I'd suggest starting with a few isolated modules or directories. -Brian _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
