No, I actually don't see the point.
It isn't a natural of C.
It isn't fixing any bugs.
What is it helping? I don't see any help. It looks like meaningless
churn.
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 03:27:05PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > this addiction to static is entirely pointless.
> Consider it a matter of taste and leave it out, then. I assume you're
> fine with __dead, though?
>
> Index: kill.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/kill/kill.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.14
> diff -u -p -r1.14 kill.c
> --- kill.c 29 Mar 2017 22:40:15 -0000 1.14
> +++ kill.c 24 Jul 2017 21:46:24 -0000
> @@ -42,10 +42,10 @@
>
> extern char *__progname;
>
> -void nosig(char *);
> +void __dead nosig(char *);
> void printsignals(FILE *);
> int signame_to_signum(char *);
> -void usage(void);
> +void __dead usage(void);
>
> int
> main(int argc, char *argv[])
> @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ signame_to_signum(char *sig)
> return (-1);
> }
>
> -void
> +void __dead
> nosig(char *name)
> {
>
> @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ printsignals(FILE *fp)
> }
> }
>
> -void
> +void __dead
> usage(void)
> {
> (void)fprintf(stderr, "usage: %s [-s signal_name] pid ...\n",
>
