Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:15:31 -0400 From: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@crodrigues.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] -Wredundant-decls: keep it or remove it? Message-ID: <20050901151531.GA43623@crodrigues.org> In-Reply-To: <20050831215640.S1678@epsplex.bde.org> References: <20050810005323.GA42721@crodrigues.org> <20050810032308.GA80916@dragon.NUXI.org> <20050827235140.GA3063@crodrigues.org> <20050828172712.T86328@delplex.bde.org> <20050831112720.GA55376@crodrigues.org> <20050831215640.S1678@epsplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:32:08PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > This seems reasonable. Is it necessary to check TREE_PUBLIC () > explicitly? We have already avoided warning for externs, so only > weird cases are left. I can't see any reason not to use simply: > > /* Don't warn about a definition following a declaration. */ > if (DECL_INITIAL (newdecl) && !DECL_INITIAL (olddecl))) > > since a definition (i.e., a declaration with an initializer) following > a declaration (i.e., a tentative definition) can never be redundant. I think you are right. I submitted a modified patch based on what you suggested here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg00006.html and got approval for it on the GCC mainline here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg00019.html I'll try to get it into GCC soon. -- Craig Rodrigues rodrigc@crodrigues.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050901151531.GA43623>