This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] Fix PR22372
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Ira Rosen <IRAR at il dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:34:25 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch] Fix PR22372
- References: <OF2D0955CD.7296C812-ONC225720B.002E2FC7-C225720B.0031D893@il.ibm.com> <45531C80.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Andrew Haley wrote on 11/09/06 07:24:
Diego Novillo writes:No, I don't think it is. It's mostly convenience.
> Since we are back in stage 1, could you remove all the forward
> declarations for static functions? As a separate patch, because you'll
> be forced to also re-arrange the function bodies and that makes for a
> fairly big patch.
Is this part of coding standards?
No point having a signature when the function can be placed right before
it's needed, so related code tends to be closer.
It also helps me navigate files because it tends to force all the
high-level logic to the bottom of the file.