Re: Re: Re: Implicition declarations of functions and bugs
On 3/11/06, Samuel Thibault <email@example.com> wrote:
> This is a warning and not an error, because using one's own strdup()
Is there any reason not to add an explicit declaration (in any case)?
> function (that would take ints) is perfectly legal. gcc-4.0 emits the
> warning to let the programmer know that he should disambiguate this by
> either #including the usual C header, or by giving the prototype of his
> own strdup() function.
> Anyway, such warnings deserve grepping, since they are evidence of a
> potential binary break.