Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 13:37:53 -0800 From: Ryan Libby <rlibby@freebsd.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: clang vs gcc warning flags Message-ID: <CAHgpiFxr=E1A3V3WLHdJvhfNBU4Z_DzSYSd9vMKbU1wnEBoXFg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <X/YYK46L8Qd2byfr@kib.kiev.ua> References: <CAHgpiFwK77o3J6Bm_3GAQRGAJz70=n8Z8bqqLirahL_gqXCM3w@mail.gmail.com> <X/YYK46L8Qd2byfr@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 12:06 PM Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> 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)?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHgpiFxr=E1A3V3WLHdJvhfNBU4Z_DzSYSd9vMKbU1wnEBoXFg>