On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 May 2012 19:25, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Chung-Lin Tang >> <clt...@codesourcery.com> wrote: >>> On 2012/5/17 01:55 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >>>>> I'm guessing these changes are the cause of a full C bootstrap >>>>> > (--disable-build-poststage1-with-cxx) failure I'm seeing on trunk. The >>>>> > *_handle_option_auto function prototypes are not seen in options.c, and >>>>> > -Werror -Wmissing-prototypes are in effect (oddly, such strict checking >>>>> > is not enforced in the default post-stage1 C++ bootstrap) >>>> Yep, We should add -Wmissing-declarations to the post-stage1 flags, >>>> which also exists in C. Could you also add that to your patch? >>>> >>> >>> I'm a little unsure of how -Wmissing-declarations vs >>> -Wmissing-prototypes behave for C? Anyways here's a patch to add >>> -Wmissing-declarations for C++, keeping C as is. >> >> What is the purpose of -Wmissing-declarations for C++? > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
The point is: it is mostly useless for C++. The rationale for its existence in C are largely irrelevant in the context of C++. -- Gaby