change log for rtems (2011-02-24)

Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsepius at
Fri Feb 25 16:13:23 UTC 2011

On 02/25/2011 12:26 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 25/02/11 9:25 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> And I don't share this view and fail to understand why you and Chris are
>> complaining.
> I was not complaining. Rather I was just understanding the reason so I
> can determine if I need to be doing something more when I add code like
> this in the future.

As I tried to explain before, it's
* in first place "code clarity" (e.g. when grepping the code when going 
after questions like "where is the declaration/definion", what may be 
the cause of the symbol-clash, what is the reason for this "cryptic 
linker error" etc.)
* in second place avoiding conflicts (e.g. when a file contains a local 
"static foo()" and misses to include the global header, when the global 
header wants "extern foo()", ...).

Another (hardly relevant to RTEMS) issue would be interfacing with C++, 
which implictily treats functions without "extern" (and without "extern 
C") as static.


More information about the vc mailing list