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
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 18:52, Miod Vallat wrote:
>> Does gcc3 support -Wimplict-function-declaration? How about clang?
>
> According to toplev.c, it does.
Of course it does. :) We're already using this option extensively in
userland. See src/*/Makefile.inc.
> Does gcc3 support -Wimplict-function-declaration? How about clang?
According to toplev.c, it does.
> Does gcc3 support -Wimplict-function-declaration? How about clang?
Why not get this commited (100% the same in all Makefile.arch files)..
and if we see a problem later on some architecture, Miod and I will
cope with these questions then.
> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:00:30 -0500
> From: Ted Unangst
>
> 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
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? A
