https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0)
> Transition to C++ did not change -Wmissing-prototypes to
> -Wmissing-declarations, so over time several violations crept in. In
> particular this penalizes optimization during non-LTO bootstrap (the
> compiler has to assume the function might be used in another TU, even though
> in reality all uses are in current file and it simply misses the 'static'
> keyword).
Why is it missing the static keyword then? (Or alternatively, why isn't it in
an anonymous namespace?)
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #1)
> Another reason to have -Wmissing-declarations is that otherwise mismatches
> of unused functions are not caught until it's too late (mismatching
> definition is assumed to be an overload of the function declared in the
> header file).
A more robust way to avoid that problem is to declare the function in a
namespace, and define it using a qualified name:
// declaration
namespace targ
{
void foo(void*);
}
// definition
void targ::foo(class vec_info*); // ERROR
Because no foo with that signature was declared in namespace targ it's an
error, not just a warning.
Should the coding convention be adjusted to avoid this problem?
