On 2020/02/15 17:59, Alessandro De Laurenzis wrote: > Hello Stuart, > > Thanks for looking into this. > > On 15/02/2020 - 15:09, Stuart Henderson wrote: > [...] > > > - Since we're already accepting that this code isn't C99 compliant, I > > > propose to clean-up a bit more the build log, adding > > > -Wno-implicit-function-declaration to CFLAG. > > > > It's not just that it isn't C99 compliant, the missing declarations mean > > that the wrong types are used for some of the calls. This can result in > > some problems like pointers being truncated to 32 bits, it wouldn't > > surprise me if some of these might result in crashes on 64-bit arches. > > So I'd at least like to keep the warnings so it's easier for anyone > > tracking down bugs, if not actually fix (maybe just some of) them. > > > > Some already have declarations in headers and it just looks like the > > #includes are missing (tclqrouter.c uses functions defined in output.h, > > antenna.c uses some defined in mask.h and maze.h). > > > > Others are only declared in the .c files where the function is defined > > so declarations for those would need copying to a suitable header and > > #including where necessary (or just copying declarations to the c files > > where they're used, though headers are usually better). > > > > So please find attached a diff with -Wno-implicit-function-declaration > removed. > > Maybe it isn't a big effort to clean-up the code from those warnings, I'll > have a look and submit a PR upstream if I'm able to reach a satisfying > picture (but this will take time...)
Thank you. I've committed this as-is.
