Re: 3.2 Compile problems with gcc 4.0

[Jim Gallacher <jg...@sympatico.ca>]

Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
> 
>> Compilation fails with the following:
>>
>> requestobject.c: In function 'request_tp_dealloc':
>> requestobject.c:1482: warning: implicit declaration of function 
>> 'request_tp_clear'
> 
> 
> This looks like a bug - I guess GCC 3 defaulted to static for 
> implicitely declared functions, or perhaps didn't mind a non-static 
> declaration followed by a static declaration.

gcc 3.3 just generates a warning:

requestobject.c: In function `request_tp_dealloc':
requestobject.c:1479: warning: implicit declaration of function 
`request_tp_clear'
requestobject.c: At top level:
requestobject.c:1511: warning: `request_tp_clear' was declared 
implicitly `extern' and later `static'
requestobject.c:1479: warning: previous declaration of `request_tp_clear'

> As a sidenote - (wearing my dictator hat) - we really should be 
> following the Apache coding style - having no spaces after if and 
> several statements per line makes it difficult to read. Also, repetitive 
> code is probably a good case for using an extra function or a macro 
> (macro's should be last resort though because they can be hard to read 
> and debug - but in this particular case a macro may be just fine)

OK, chief. :) I don't mind doing an audit for Apache coding style 
compliance, but in a post 3.2.0 time frame. Let's not start mucking with 
working code just before the release.

>> It's easy enough to fix (and I will) by adding a function prototype 
>> for request_tp_clear before it is called in request_tp_dealloc(). eg.
>> static int request_tp_clear(requestobject *self);
> 
> 
> I think it can be fixed by simply moving tp_dealloc after tp_clear.

This is true, but I wasn't sure if it that was the preferred way.

>> I've noticed that in general functions are implicitly declared in 
>> mod_python. Is there a technical reason for this, or is it "just one 
>> of those things"?
> 
> 
> Not really - implicit declaration is when something is referenced before 
> being declared which in most cases results in compilation errors. What 
> you probably mean to say is that they do not have forward declarations, 
> but you generally don't need them if code is ordered correctly - there 
> is no reason to have a forward declaration for every function.

OK. I'll fix the bug by moving request_tp_clear ahead of request_tp_dealloc.

Jim

Re: 3.2 Compile problems with gcc 4.0

["Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy" <gr...@apache.org>]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:

> OK, chief. :) I don't mind doing an audit for Apache coding style 
> compliance, but in a post 3.2.0 time frame. Let's not start mucking with 
> working code just before the release.

I agree, it's just a note for the future, whatever code we check in should 
always be the best, well spaced, well commented, read like a poem, etc.

:-)

Grisha