From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id DB1253851C0B; Mon,  8 Jun 2020 01:55:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DB1253851C0B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1591581345;
 bh=DOqz58jhEzvPfkYIJ+E73CjImW4FbdHSF4T85mfPAhg=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=Hr6+CKvGrgUjLwtxcT/BdGi2x0p3ywTos6qI4XxxdkvlXtSIkiFBYLoO3el2PeKGJ
 v4tBbu8fLthwDmeVP0n0wiiDNbTAdItVjoBSMT+kB5P1BB0own3l/yO+b95+wgkzAn
 /6o4XmxFSqNfoDmiKy8lpjbrVRhVBS9eU77+YaOQ=
From: "egallager at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/91972] Bootstrap should use -Wmissing-declarations
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 01:55:45 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: build, diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-91972-4-mECXbtJD6J@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-91972-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-91972-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 01:55:46 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D91972

--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #4)
> > Why is it missing the static keyword then? (Or alternatively, why isn't=
 it in an anonymous namespace?)
>=20
> Huh? Without the warning developers may simply forget to put the 'static'
> keyword. With the warning they would be reminded when bootstrapping the
> patch.
>=20
>=20
> > Ah, I like the namespace thing for target hooks (possibly langhooks as =
well).
>=20
> Sure, it's nice to have sensible namespace rules for future additions, but
> hopefully that's not a reason/excuse to never re-enable the warning.

Agreed; I think I tried enabling the warning once while bootstrapping mysel=
f,
but I forget what the results were...=