Building Parrot for the first time in _way to long_ today, I noticed this
compiler warning:
compilers/imcc/pbc.c:182: warning: 'old_blocks' declared 'static' but never
defined
Which bothered me. It looks like in pbc.c there are prototypes for
old_blocks() declared twice. One at line 182 and then again identically about
100 lines lower inside a #ifdef HAS_JIT. old_block() itself also lives inside
of another #ifdef HAS_JIT. Is there any good reason not to remove the
prototype that sits outside the HAS_JIT ifdefs?
Cheers,
-J
--
Index: compilers/imcc/pbc.c
===================================================================
--- compilers/imcc/pbc.c (revision 37869)
+++ compilers/imcc/pbc.c (working copy)
@@ -177,10 +177,6 @@
__attribute__nonnull__(1)
__attribute__nonnull__(2);
-PARROT_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT
-static int old_blocks(PARROT_INTERP)
- __attribute__nonnull__(1);
-
PARROT_CONST_FUNCTION
PARROT_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT
PARROT_CANNOT_RETURN_NULL
@@ -273,8 +269,6 @@
#define ASSERT_ARGS_mk_multi_sig __attribute__unused__ int _ASSERT_ARGS_CHECK
= \
PARROT_ASSERT_ARG(interp) \
|| PARROT_ASSERT_ARG(r)
-#define ASSERT_ARGS_old_blocks __attribute__unused__ int _ASSERT_ARGS_CHECK = \
- PARROT_ASSERT_ARG(interp)
#define ASSERT_ARGS_slice_deb __attribute__unused__ int _ASSERT_ARGS_CHECK = 0
#define ASSERT_ARGS_store_fixup __attribute__unused__ int _ASSERT_ARGS_CHECK =
\
PARROT_ASSERT_ARG(interp) \
@@ -293,6 +287,9 @@
#ifdef HAS_JIT
+#define ASSERT_ARGS_old_blocks __attribute__unused__ int _ASSERT_ARGS_CHECK = \
+ PARROT_ASSERT_ARG(interp)
+
PARROT_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT
static int old_blocks(PARROT_INTERP)
__attribute__nonnull__(1);
_______________________________________________
http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
