Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC, PATCH] Add -Wstrict-prototypes, maybe later -Wmissing-prototypes

[Avi Kivity]

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Blue Swirl wrote:
> > On 8/9/08, Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> wrote:
> >  
> > > Blue Swirl wrote:
> > >
> > >    
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I made a series of patches that add -Wstrict-prototypes to the CFLAGS
> > > > and then -Wmissing-prototypes, both of which are enabled by Xen. I
> > > > also fixed most warnings generated -Wstrict-prototypes and some of
> > > > them for the -Wmissing-prototypes case.
> > > >
> > > > Compiling with -Wstrict-prototypes produces only one extra warning. I
> > > > think this flag should be enabled.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >       
> > >  As long as the plan is to fix all of those warnings, I think it's a 
> > > good
> > > idea.
> > >     
> >
> > The extra unfixed warning comes from monitor.c:
> > typedef struct term_cmd_t {
> >     const char *name;
> >     const char *args_type;
> >     void (*handler)();
> >     const char *params;
> >     const char *help;
> > } term_cmd_t;
> >
> > The warning is generated because the definition of "handler" should
> > also describe the parameters and not use the old () style. But in this
> > case, they can vary:
> >   
>
> You could just switch void (*handler)() to void *handler. 

Function pointers might be wider than data pointers.

Looking at the usage, though, it looks like the best thing is to have a

 void (*handler)(const char **args)

So we pass the array of arguments (could be zero length) to the handler.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function