> >
> > From my limited knowledge of the code I can say that they can be static.
> > More precisely, I have compiled the megapatch for Sun Solaris and I've
> > had the same warnings. So, I've changed the not-quite-so-static
> > functions to static functions and it worked fine for me.
> > Despite this fact I would like to know too, why they are considered
> > not-quite-so-static.
> 
> When merging all these various patches from various authors together, I
> (actually, we), didn't have enough time to really look things over.  Those
> functions were in the 'static' section, but for some reason somebody had
> taken away the 'static' keyword.  I assumed that they were used elsewhere
> (in the function parsing code, most likely).  Because the comment still said
> "Static functions" even though they weren't static, I changed the comment.
> It was kind of a joke to myself at the time, but it reflected the fact that
> maybe they were static or maybe they were not... depending on the
> perprocessor defines.
> 
> -Nathan

So, then answer to the "million-dollar-question" is that all of those
functions should be static and the section of the code in "tokenize.c"
and "f_expr.c" where they are defined as not being static should be
removed so the code can be cleaned up a bit.

Correct?

-- 

 +--------------------------+----------------------------------------+
 | Robert Alan Byer         | "I don't want to take over the world,  |
 | bye### [at] mailourserversnet |  just my own little part of it."       |
 | Phone: (317)357-2724     | http://www.ourservers.net/~byer        |
 +--------------------------+----------------------------------------+
 | Send an E-mail request to obtain my PGP key.        ICQ #65926579 |
 +-------------------------------------------------------------------+

Post a reply to this message