On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Patrick Palka <patr...@parcs.ath.cx> wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> This patch wraps a bunch of locally-used, non-debug functions in an >> anonymous namespace. These functions can't simply be marked as "static" >> because they are used as template arguments to hash_table::traverse, and >> the C++98 standard does not allow non-extern variables to be used as >> template arguments. The next best thing to marking them static is to >> define each of these functions inside an anonymous namespace. > > Hum, the formatting used looks super-ugly. I suppose a local visibility > attribute would work as well? (well, what's the goal of the patch?) > > Thanks, > Richard.
The goal of this patch is to resolve warnings emitted by -Wmissing-declarations for the GCC sources. Later I would like to propose adding -Wmissing-declarations to GCC's build flags, but I figured that these kinds of cleanup patches are good on their own. I don't think a local visibility attribute would squelch the -Wmissing-declaration warnings. Is there a better/standardized format for defining a function within an anonymous namespace? I personally don't think the formatting is too bad.