From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KSFjl-0000xp-VI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 14:33:53 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KSFjk-0000xH-5E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 14:33:53 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35161 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KSFjk-0000x9-1m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 14:33:52 -0400
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.171]:64001)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1KSFjj-0003h2-Dz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 14:33:51 -0400
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so3316305wfd.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f43fc5580808101133r28b4343di4b25404067c13552@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:33:49 +0300
From: "Blue Swirl" <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC, PATCH] Add -Wstrict-prototypes,
	maybe later -Wmissing-prototypes
In-Reply-To: <489DE0C7.9000505@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <f43fc5580808081022l28c9bd7bs45cfe8a94e32e308@mail.gmail.com>
	<489DE0C7.9000505@codemonkey.ws>
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

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:
static void do_help(const char *name)
static void do_quit(void)
static void do_eject(int force, const char *filename)
static void do_change(const char *device, const char *target, const char *fmt)
static void do_screen_dump(const char *filename)
static void do_memory_dump(int count, int format, int size,
                           uint32_t addrh, uint32_t addrl)
static void do_print(int count, int format, int size, unsigned int
valh, unsigned int vall)
static void do_ioport_read(int count, int format, int size, int addr,
int has_index, int index)
etc.

I don't have a good plan how to fix this, proposals are welcome.
Changing all handlers to use va_args to just silence a gcc warning
sounds like overkill.