On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Edgar Pettijohn <[email protected]> wrote: > --- rdist.c.orig Sun Feb 28 15:29:27 2016 > +++ rdist.c Sun Feb 28 15:32:06 2016 > @@ -57,8 +57,7 @@ > char *path_remsh = NULL; > > static void addhostlist(char *, struct namelist **); > -static void usage(void); > -int main(int, char **, char **); > +__dead void usage(void);
Why remove the 'static'? Does anyone know if the gcc community has settled on a Best Practice for where to place attributes relative to storage specifiers such as 'static'? I.e., which of these is considered better by the gcc 5.x+ community: attribute((noreturn)) static void foo(void); static attribute((noreturn)) void foo(void); ? We have an ugly mix of those and others currently. > - (void) fprintf(stderr, > + fprintf(stderr, IMO, removing casts to void like this are an all-or-none affair. I think I was the last dev still using rdist. Since 5.8 I've almost completely switched to rsync. Maybe the diff to apply in this case is to usr.bin/Makefile, removing rdist and rdistd. Anyone still *using* rdist? Philip Guenther
