From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-314520-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2816 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2010 15:06:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 2717 invoked by uid 48); 12 Apr 2010 15:06:15 -0000
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:06:00 -0000
Subject: [Bug c/43728]  New: Warning for redundant static function prototypes
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
Message-ID: <bug-43728-87@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg01160.txt.bz2

Prototypes for static functions that aren't used in between the prototype and
the actual static function definition are useless and could be cleaned up, I
think gcc itself has thousands of such useless prototypes.

It isn't hard to add a warning for this.  Given:
static void foo (int);

#ifdef D
void bar (void)
{
  foo (0);
}
#endif

static void foo (int x)
{
  x++;
}

void baz (void)
{
  foo (0);
}

we'd warn about the foo prototype (unless compiling with -DD).


-- 
           Summary: Warning for redundant static function prototypes
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43728