https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #4) > > Why is it missing the static keyword then? (Or alternatively, why isn't it > > in an anonymous namespace?) > > Huh? Without the warning developers may simply forget to put the 'static' > keyword. With the warning they would be reminded when bootstrapping the > patch. > > > > Ah, I like the namespace thing for target hooks (possibly langhooks as > > well). > > Sure, it's nice to have sensible namespace rules for future additions, but > hopefully that's not a reason/excuse to never re-enable the warning. Agreed; I think I tried enabling the warning once while bootstrapping myself, but I forget what the results were...
