This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
. why is it a good idea to go hunting for functions not used outside its source file and make them static? I don't see this requirement in any coding standards document pertinent to GDB.
. if this is NOT mandated by any coding standards we try to enforce, why is this an "obvious" patch?
The reason I'm asking is that, in general, whoever wrote that function could have judged it to be generally useful and export-worthy. IOW, its non-static type might be a result of deliberate design, not a historical accident (such as if it was initially static, then made extern because some other code, which no longer exists, needed it).
Which one is the case in point, only an investigation into "cvs annotate" or "git annotate" can tell. If such an investigation_was_ in fact done, it would be a good idea to present it here.
If it turns out that this function was extern from day one, then we should discuss whether it indeed is worthy of being exported, instead of defaulting to the "obvious" route based on its current users.
P.S. This could be judged as bike-shedding, but if the issue is serious enough to make a patch, it is serious enough to discuss, IMO.
-- Yao (éå)
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |