On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Add missing "static" qualifier.
>>>
>>> Per buildfarm member pademelon.
>
>> Gah. Sorry I keep missing these.
>
> It's a pain that gcc won't warn about it. On the other hand, it's
> probably only neatnik-ism on my part to care; I do not know of any
> compilers that would actually give an error. It only seems worth
> fixing to me because whether a function is static or not is important
> information, so I like functions to be accurately labeled.
Yeah, I agree. I like it to be labeled correctly, too. I just keep
forgetting to check for it when reviewing, and people keep sending me
patches that do it incorrectly, and then I find out that I've muffed
it again when I see your commit. It would certainly be nice if gcc
had a warning for this.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
