> Hi Fare,
> I haven't seen the message you are replying to.. no context other than
> personal experience listening to warnings, and in this case ignoring
> them.
It was a personal message, as I'm the author of the byteorder files.
I cc'ed the reply to linux-kernel, since the problem is general to
the linux kernel. Maybe I wasn't clear.
>> If gcc accepts prototypes for extern inline routines,
>> feel free to add such prototypes to all kernel header files,
>> and contribute a patch to linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
>> mailing list as well as torvalds@transmeta.com.
>> If not, fix gcc and/or glibc.
>
> The last gcc docs I read on the subject stated that the proper way
> is to do a prototype ala 'extern inline prototype', and then the extern
> inline definition itself. The are a _lot_ of places where this
> 'standard' isn't met.. or the standard has changed. The compiler
> gripes when no prototype is given, but it's a pretty darn useless
> warning.
>
Ok. So there's a need for someone to write prototypes
for all extern inline routines in the kernel (despite the silliness),
or to fix this gcc stupidity. Any taker?
[Hum. Can anyone tell me what gcc development list/newsgroup
to forward this case to?]
And of course, this isn't an excuse for libc people
to have users import kernel sources (would Linus say?).
## Faré | VN: Уng-Vû Bân | Join the TUNES project! http://www.tunes.org/ ##
## FR: François-René Rideau | TUNES is a Useful, Not Expedient System ##
## Reflection&Cybernethics | Project for a Free Reflective Computing System ##
Every four seconds a woman has a baby. Our problem is to find this
woman and stop her.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu