"Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom> writes:

> 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.

This explains it. I'm still impressed by your work to merge all these
patches (and writing your own at the same time). So, it's fully 
understandable that some gaps exist that haven't been be explored so far.

Thomas

-- 
http://thomas.willhalm.de/ (includes pgp key)

Post a reply to this message