[ccan] Should we start using -Wextra in CCAN?

[Joseph Adams]

I had a feeling this would be controversial ;)  I have run into a
couple annoyances myself without -Wextra present, but I would have to
agree that -Wextra -Werror is too much for mainline CCAN.  I can see
it being a major annoyance for contributors who are bringing in
modules from all sorts of places.  However, for masochists like me who
prefer -Wextra, I'll try to maintain my patch at
http://www.funsitelots.com/ccan/wextra.patch .  I suppose this could
be a bzr branch, but I don't know much about bzr nor do I have
repository access yet.

> But a useful exercise, nonetheless!

Yup, it gave me a chance to pore over the source.

>> I also
>> changed the template for run.c so it would read "int main(void)"
>> instead of "int main(int argc, char *argv[])", as argc and argv are
>> unused.
>
> Wow, I didn't realize that was legal, but the standard says you're right.
>
> Please send that cleanup separately.

Attached.  I also cleaned up a couple annoyances like unterminated
comments and "\return" so the templates should be slightly easier to
use.

Joey.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: run_main_void_20090517.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1221 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/ccan/attachments/20090517/f5659bc9/attachment.bin>