[RFC] -Wredundant-decls: keep it or remove it?

[Craig Rodrigues]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:32:08PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> This seems reasonable.  Is it necessary to check TREE_PUBLIC ()
> explicitly?  We have already avoided warning for externs, so only
> weird cases are left.  I can't see any reason not to use simply:
> 
> 	/* Don't warn about a definition following a declaration.  */
> 	if (DECL_INITIAL (newdecl) && !DECL_INITIAL (olddecl)))
> 
> since a definition (i.e., a declaration with an initializer) following
> a declaration (i.e., a tentative definition) can never be redundant.


I think you are right.  I submitted a modified patch based on what you
suggested here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg00006.html

and got approval for it on the GCC mainline here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg00019.html

I'll try to get it into GCC soon.

-- 
Craig Rodrigues        
rodrigc at crodrigues.org