Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: question about linker
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2024 11:31:12 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <86r06omum7.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <vi54e9$3ie0o$1@dont-email.me> <viaqh0$nm7q$1@dont-email.me> <877c8nt255.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <viasv4$nm7q$2@dont-email.me> <vibr1l$vvjf$1@dont-email.me> <vic73f$1205f$1@dont-email.me> <20241129142810.00007920@yahoo.com> <vicfra$13nl4$1@dont-email.me> <20241129161517.000010b8@yahoo.com> <vicque$15ium$2@dont-email.me> <vid110$16hte$1@dont-email.me> <87mshhsrr0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vidd2a$18k9j$1@dont-email.me> <8734j9sj0f.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vidnp3$1ovvm$2@paganini.bofh.team> <vidqbb$1b5qv$1@dont-email.me> <20241130190829.00007193@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2024 20:31:16 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6df3ea726b10ab0f3de7a160d28b993d"; logging-data="308202"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX199IJ10iSkRW2V0768rOGEZQ1W3s5FGKjQ="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5EquKiTZsSqOR+VAa1xJaqWNTFE= sha1:7xa72FN/e9xsJ0s1gdNKH9stgEA=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:389324

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 20:38:51 -0500
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/24 19:55, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Hmm, in well-written code static functions are likely to be a
>>> majority.  Some people prefer to declare all functions and
>>> put declarations of static functions in the same file as the
>>> functions itself.  Conseqently, function declarations are not
>>> rare in such code.  Do you consider it well-written?
>>
>> I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's poorly written, but I don't
>> like the unnecessary redundancy of that approach.  Whenever possible, I
>> prefer to let each static function's definition serve as it's only
>> declaration.  This isn't possible, for instance, if you have a pair of
>> mutually recursive functions.
>>
>> The redundancy between a header file's function declaration and the
>> corresponding function definition is necessary, given the way that C
>> works.  Avoiding that is one of the reasons I like declaring static
>> functions, where appropriate.
>
> Top-down-minded people don't like details textually preceding "big
> picture".
>
> [O.T.]
> Better solution would be if static function definition anywhere in the
> file serves like declaration (prototype) for the whole file, including
> preceding part.  We are long past the time where single-pass compiler
> was a legit argument against such arrangement.  Nowadays the only
> possible counter argument would be breaking existing code.  But I don't
> see how such change breaks anything.

You have my vote.

I also vote for whole-file declarations for defined objects as well
as functions, and for whole-file declarations for definitions of
entities that have external linkage as well as statics.