From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Wed Jan 6 21:38:05 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB52D4DFDB1 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 21:38:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rlibby@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qv1-f45.google.com (mail-qv1-f45.google.com [209.85.219.45]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DB2lx2N1cz3KwF for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 21:38:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rlibby@gmail.com) Received: by mail-qv1-f45.google.com with SMTP id s6so1942251qvn.6 for ; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 13:38:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=T+z0uG7iFasqHX4TU0UkJsn30/BLoBpndYg26nkoR34=; b=hZ4aYRmLUh7nn8G0Nunw69wnxm+IX+SwXvjuaNMPZSaniLebelTGoGtVYMI+iLcIal s3gMLAcg5O6aw/NWf4TNceuzaG7ZhYYieHMAo2CljWWNMW2/0GHvNFrP1uT8vg+duR55 001aIlIqqj7SnZYXcUFv3flnt5qfbPDEm8SPvMpvOokR7Fa68kikKeqbbtN3IFA6Pcy0 dw/jvjd/S6h2yegHQ4qW1c6b3DG1oN+MrAukunkoACWyKpCvetAAbqsndZYcaQkzhUPO vK4HTMwKjsIVaDkWduH3ZVcrRoGx98YN1sRmA0HHBtou2kJqGpV1JaaAuqOOM+2O3hxa jFzA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532FI2NeDcoMtq4KY1Qqq71jDT1Z8cEtMDNK9NJpbF006BghUOLc 7wKrBcNJU0U3pf4kYgxs5KuAQvanQio= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxrBgN7CoiuJSxxj1KknEMuVYULul6h/aBfQXOQvPrvrMMD2yRIFwOor03+nPB7ZkDlvmp/0w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:d05:: with SMTP id 5mr5837478qvh.54.1609969084236; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 13:38:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt1-f178.google.com (mail-qt1-f178.google.com. [209.85.160.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a35sm1918101qtk.82.2021.01.06.13.38.03 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Jan 2021 13:38:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-f178.google.com with SMTP id 7so3127604qtp.1 for ; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 13:38:03 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:aed:2088:: with SMTP id 8mr6025795qtb.174.1609969083747; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 13:38:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Ryan Libby Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 13:37:53 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: clang vs gcc warning flags To: Konstantin Belousov Cc: FreeBSD Hackers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4DB2lx2N1cz3KwF X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 21:38:05 -0000 On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 12:06 PM Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 11:53:13AM -0800, Ryan Libby wrote: > > - Wnested-externs I just do not understand. We have specified this > > warning flag for some 25 years but to me it seems completely without > > value. I suggest we just delete it. > I suspect this warning is to flag style(9) violations. Which aspect do you mean? I don't see it mentioned explicitly, but I know some of style(9) is reading between the lines. If it's that objects with external linkage should be declared in headers, I think that doesn't address most of the cases where extern is actually used in our .c files. Maybe the answer should be different for contrib software (where we don't generally enforce style)?