Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC, PATCH] Add -Wstrict-prototypes, maybe later -Wmissing-prototypes

[Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>]

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> 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. 

Function pointers might be wider than data pointers.

Looking at the usage, though, it looks like the best thing is to have a

  void (*handler)(const char **args)

So we pass the array of arguments (could be zero length) to the handler.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function