![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 06/07/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote: > Currently, using an undeclared function gives a compile warning, but it > can lead to a nasty to debug runtime stack corruptions if the prototype > of the function is different from what gcc guessed. > > With -Werror-implicit-function-declaration we are getting an immediate > compile error instead. > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> > Makes good sense. It gets my vote. Thanks Adrian. -- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-07-06 18:13 [W:0.665 / U:0.060 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||