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 393CF388F062; Tue,  5 May 2020 13:34:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 393CF388F062
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1588685644;
 bh=/F1VsD06KoJTt+nnGndynJjumSup8OCKAvmDoWnmeCI=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=dViVEFl31kGFkbqUD8vNrV6g+kbLtGfUwZ8nC3Q3uCBnb+zHh7SZ4cGto2uj/k/Et
 ixrEJb6O2uKxV/4b2TO7shcepfxogSihKSRfOJhIgDJ8tvOhOxQahZAJ6o1xFUEXue
 3gmr5gEH4M6A/5DKgWfPEpns6YrJsCXPUlRAMhBo=
From: "rguenth 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: Tue, 05 May 2020 13:34:04 +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: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth 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-v0mmCmuE2c@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: Tue, 05 May 2020 13:34:04 -0000

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

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0)
> > Transition to C++ did not change -Wmissing-prototypes to
> > -Wmissing-declarations, so over time several violations crept in. In
> > particular this penalizes optimization during non-LTO bootstrap (the
> > compiler has to assume the function might be used in another TU, even t=
hough
> > in reality all uses are in current file and it simply misses the 'stati=
c'
> > keyword).
>=20
> Why is it missing the static keyword then? (Or alternatively, why isn't it
> in an anonymous namespace?)
>=20
>=20
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #1)
> > Another reason to have -Wmissing-declarations is that otherwise mismatc=
hes
> > of unused functions are not caught until it's too late (mismatching
> > definition is assumed to be an overload of the function declared in the
> > header file).
>=20
> A more robust way to avoid that problem is to declare the function in a
> namespace, and define it using a qualified name:
>=20
> // declaration
> namespace targ
> {
>   void foo(void*);
> }
>=20
> // definition
> void targ::foo(class vec_info*);  // ERROR
>=20
> Because no foo with that signature was declared in namespace targ it's an
> error, not just a warning.
>=20
> Should the coding convention be adjusted to avoid this problem?

Ah, I like the namespace thing for target hooks (possibly langhooks as well=
).=