From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35684) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a9aRx-0004zs-Be for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:26:38 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a9aRu-000250-Ay for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:26:37 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]:34829) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a9aRu-00024d-4y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:26:34 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id l126so26375014wml.0 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:26:32 -0800 (PST) References: <1447946528-1533-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <1447946528-1533-6-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <87wpt4bv9i.fsf@linaro.org> <56727FDC.1040202@linaro.org> <87wpsdfbm6.fsf@linaro.org> <87vb7xf6r6.fsf@linaro.org> From: Eric Auger Message-ID: <5672D401.2040000@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:25:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87vb7xf6r6.fsf@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RESEND RFC 5/6] hw/arm/sysbus-fdt: helpers for clock node generation List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?Q?Alex_Benn=c3=a9e?= , Peter Maydell Cc: thomas.lendacky@amd.com, eric.auger@st.com, Patch Tracking , QEMU Developers , Alex Williamson , qemu-arm , Suravee Suthikulpanit , Paolo Bonzini , Baptiste Reynal , Christoffer Dall Hi Alex, On 12/17/2015 04:13 PM, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Peter Maydell writes: > >> On 17 December 2015 at 13:28, Alex Bennée wrote: >>> Usually I would expect to see a pre-declaration of a function at the >>> head of the file and only if it is used before the actual definition of >>> the function. It doesn't make sense to pre-declare right before the >>> actual function definition itself. >>> >>> I'm surprised to hear the compiler complained, especially as nothing was >>> calling this function in this patch. >> >> The compiler complains if it sees a function which is not static >> and for which it hasn't previously seen a prototype, because >> generally this means that either (a) the function is file-local >> only and should have been declared static or (b) the function is >> not file-local but you forgot to put a prototype in a header so >> that other files can call it. (This is -Wmissing-prototypes.) > > > Ahh I see now. I guess if its declared static in this patch and not > used its going to complain about an unused function as well? Maybe that > suggests the patch should just be merged with patch where it is actually > used? my fear is that it becomes too big for review then. I suggest we wait for other comments and I will follow the consensus if any. I just wanted to emphasize I did not ignore your comment but I just don't know how to handle it at best ;-) Thanks for your time! Regards Eric > >> >> thanks >> -- PMM > > > -- > Alex Bennée >