From owner-freebsd-current Sat Feb 1 16:41:52 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41FBA37B401 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 16:41:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B23D43F79 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 16:41:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (Ugrondar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h120flLf037027; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 00:41:47 GMT (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from Ugrondar@localhost) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with UUCP id h120flaA037026; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 00:41:47 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: storm.FreeBSD.org.uk: Ugrondar set sender to mark@grondar.org using -f Received: from grondar.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grimreaper.grondar.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h120ajaX040534; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 02:36:45 +0200 (SAST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) From: Mark Murray Message-Id: <200302020036.h120ajaX040534@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: Matthew Dillon Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Style fixups for proc.h In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Feb 2003 16:14:28 PST." <200302020014.h120ESxb018045@apollo.backplane.com> Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 00:36:45 +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Matthew Dillon writes: > > :WARNS=5. > > This isn't helpful. I tried adding every -W switch in bsd.sys.mk > and couldn't reproduce the problem. What compiler option is causing > the problem? I don't know which specific one. > Ok, now I'm really confused. How can it not always help? If the > arguments are the same as the arguments declared in the underlying > procedures why would an error still be produced? The diff you produced > for proc.h is *already* fairly extensive. If you want to fix this, > you only need to fix the lines generating compiler warnings. "arg" in a function prototype gets confused with variable "arg" in some function(s). > I really dislike screwing around with source code to work around > bugs in the the compiler, or lint. Given the choice of underlines > or leaving the arguments unnamed, I would leave them unnamed. Or I > would figure out and remove whatever broken compiler option is generating > the warning in the first place. Then can we just get the proc.h prototypes into a (any) consistent style? M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message