Subject: Re: Why is using "inline" as a variable name a parse error for our compiler?
To: der Mouse <mouse@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
From: Chris G Demetriou <Chris_G_Demetriou@BALVENIE.PDL.CS.CMU.EDU>
List: current-users
Date: 07/19/1995 08:07:50
> >>> NetBSD's cc is basically gcc, and in gcc "inline" is a language
> >>> keyword.  [...]
> >> What about using either -ansi or -ansi -pedantic?
> >> I think -ansi disables most of the GNU extensions.
> > Using -traditional certainly should.  (And it should still work
> > equally well with most NetBSD code too, right guys?  0.0 ;-))
> Unfortunately so.  I really wish people would drop the non-prototyped
> compatability thing...for example, my last message to current-users
> describes a bug that never would have happened if the kernel had been
> built with -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes (and either -Werror
> or the discipline to not ignore the warnings).

dropping backward compatibility for compilers w/o prototypes is not
the same as compiling the kernel with those options, and saying that
the kernel should be compiled with those options doesn't mean that
said backward compatibility should be dropped.

I, for one, strongly encourage compiling with -Werror, to the point of
having a strong desire to add it to the system Make rules for
'standard' programs.  If -Werror didn't exist, the Alpha port would
have been ... a lot harder...