[patch] Fix PR22372

Diego Novillo dnovillo@redhat.com
Thu Nov 9 12:47:00 GMT 2006


Andrew Haley wrote on 11/09/06 07:24:
> Diego Novillo writes:
> 
>  > 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, I don't think it is.  It's mostly convenience.

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.



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list