On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes: >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Add missing "static" qualifier. >>> >>> Per buildfarm member pademelon. > >> Gah. Sorry I keep missing these. > > It's a pain that gcc won't warn about it. On the other hand, it's > probably only neatnik-ism on my part to care; I do not know of any > compilers that would actually give an error. It only seems worth > fixing to me because whether a function is static or not is important > information, so I like functions to be accurately labeled.
Yeah, I agree. I like it to be labeled correctly, too. I just keep forgetting to check for it when reviewing, and people keep sending me patches that do it incorrectly, and then I find out that I've muffed it again when I see your commit. It would certainly be nice if gcc had a warning for this. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
