On Fri, Apr 16 2021 at 23:37, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16 2021 at 13:38, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
>> #ifdef CONFIG_STATIC_CALL_SELFTEST
>>
>> -static int func_a(int x)
>> +int func_a(int x)
>> {
>> return x+1;
>> }
>>
>> -static int func_b(int x)
>> +int func_b(int x)
>> {
>> return x+2;
>> }
>
> Did you even compile that?
>
> Global functions without a prototype are generating warnings, but we can
> ignore them just because of sekurity, right?
>
> Aside of that polluting the global namespace with func_a/b just to work
> around a tool shortcoming is beyond hillarious.
>
> Fix the tool not the perfectly correct code.
That said, I wouldn't mind a __dont_dare_to_rename annotation to help
the compiler, but anything else is just wrong.
Thanks,
tglx
