From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43084) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a9aun-0006Uh-1A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:56:25 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a9auh-00012Z-VR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:56:24 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]:35321) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a9auh-000125-Ee for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:56:19 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id l126so27648288wml.0 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:56:19 -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> <5672D401.2040000@linaro.org> From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= In-reply-to: <5672D401.2040000@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:56:15 +0000 Message-ID: <87twnhf4rk.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Eric Auger Cc: Peter Maydell , eric.auger@st.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, Patch Tracking , QEMU Developers , Alex Williamson , qemu-arm , Suravee Suthikulpanit , Paolo Bonzini , Baptiste Reynal , Christoffer Dall Eric Auger writes: > 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. It's a valid concern although I think in this case your patches are fairly well contained. > 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 ;-) It's OK, there is often dark compromise involved in keeping the compiler gods happy - as long as it compiles clean ;-) > > Thanks for your time! > > Regards > > Eric >> >>> >>> thanks >>> -- PMM >> >> >> -- >> Alex Bennée >> -- Alex Bennée