On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 07:00:30PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> I think -Wimplicit-function-declaration is a better fit for the
> desired warning here. We don't want implicit function declarations.
> This is the same warning we recently added to userland in a few places.
>
> -Wstrict-prototypes was used in the past because I think the above
> warning wasn't available? Anyway, I don't like it, because combined
> with the no static rule, even private functions need prototypes. I
> think it's silly when I see code that does...
>
> int somefun(int); /* declaration */
> int
> somefun(int x)
> {
> /* definition two lines later */
> }
>
> If a function is defined before it's used, it shouldn't be necessary
> to provide a private declaration, too.
The current -Wstrict-prototypes enforces a consistent style at least.
So I would leave it as it is.
bluhm
