From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KSYHM-0004kM-Ke
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:21:48 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KSYHJ-0004hw-Hy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:21:48 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38376 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KSYHJ-0004hj-CF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:21:45 -0400
Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.225]:52634)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1KSYHJ-00017V-4R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:21:45 -0400
Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h29so1222858wxd.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48A04ACD.5090900@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:21:01 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC, PATCH] Add -Wstrict-prototypes, maybe later
	-Wmissing-prototypes
References: <f43fc5580808081022l28c9bd7bs45cfe8a94e32e308@mail.gmail.com>	<489DE0C7.9000505@codemonkey.ws>
	<f43fc5580808101133r28b4343di4b25404067c13552@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f43fc5580808101133r28b4343di4b25404067c13552@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 8/9/08, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
>   
>> Blue Swirl wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I made a series of patches that add -Wstrict-prototypes to the CFLAGS
>>> and then -Wmissing-prototypes, both of which are enabled by Xen. I
>>> also fixed most warnings generated -Wstrict-prototypes and some of
>>> them for the -Wmissing-prototypes case.
>>>
>>> Compiling with -Wstrict-prototypes produces only one extra warning. I
>>> think this flag should be enabled.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>  As long as the plan is to fix all of those warnings, I think it's a good
>> idea.
>>     
>
> The extra unfixed warning comes from monitor.c:
> typedef struct term_cmd_t {
>     const char *name;
>     const char *args_type;
>     void (*handler)();
>     const char *params;
>     const char *help;
> } term_cmd_t;
>
> The warning is generated because the definition of "handler" should
> also describe the parameters and not use the old () style. But in this
> case, they can vary:
>   

You could just switch void (*handler)() to void *handler.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori