From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 28 11:49:55 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id LAA00573 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 28 Feb 1995 11:49:55 -0800 Received: from seagull.rtd.com (root@Seagull.rtd.com [198.102.68.2]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA00564 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 1995 11:49:54 -0800 Received: (from dgy@localhost) by seagull.rtd.com (8.6.9/8.6.9.1) id LAA25222 for freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com; Tue, 28 Feb 1995 11:05:39 -0700 From: Don Yuniskis Message-Id: <199502281805.LAA25222@seagull.rtd.com> Subject: porting software To: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com (FreeBSD hackers) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 11:05:37 -0700 (MST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 794 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Greetings! Frequently, when porting software to FreeBSD, the compiler emits "... was declared implicitly `extern' and later `static'" errors. I understand their cause and realize adding a prototype is the correct and easiest way to silence them (barring a compiler switch). However, can I simply ignore them? Currently, I simply examine the offending function declaration and, if it returns 'int', assume the "implicit" declaration will coincide with the "explicit" declaration. (figuring that the real potential for screw up lies in a function which returns something *other* than int. Q: will the compiler emit a *real* error in those cases?) Should I also be examining arguments, etc.? Likewise for 'non-static' --> 'static' warnings... Any other "general comments"? Thx, --don