Thomas Willhalm <tho### [at] willhalmde> wrote...
>
> 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

Post a reply to this message