On 2020-10-09 13:33:39-0700, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > The argument for including it is less clear to me. You say below:
> >
> >> [...]By doing so, we would also prevent a
> >> mistake of not writing "extern" when we need to (i.e. decls of data
> >> items, that are not functions) when less experienced developers try
> >> to mimic how the existing surrounding declarations are written.
> >
> > but to my recollection that has not been a big problem. And it's one
> > that's usually easily caught by the compiler. A missing "extern" on a
> > variable will usually get you a multiple-definition warning at
> > link-time (if you manage to also omit the actual definition you won't
> > see that, though "make sparse" will warn that your variable ought to be
> > static).
>
> Not really, that is where the "common" extension comes in, to help
> us with it hurt others without it, unknowingly X-<.
Yes, that's where tentative definition jumpes in.
But, tentative definition is known to cause headache to compiler optimization.
And from GCC 10, gcc change to `-fno-common` by default.
We can enable `-fno-common` now if we can detect our compiler is gcc,
but, I don't think it worth to fiddle with Makefile to add that logic.
>
> $ cat >a.c <<\EOF
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include "c.h"
>
> int common = 47;
>
> int main(int ac, char **av)
> {
> printf("%d\n", common + other);
> return 0;
> }
> EOF
> $ cat >b.c <<\EOF
> #include "c.h"
>
> int other = 22;
> EOF
> $ cat >c.h <<\EOF
> int common;
> int other;
> EOF
> $ gcc -Wall -o c a.c b.c; ./c
> 59
>
> And I have a strong preference, after thinking about it, to have
> "extern" in front in the declarations. It gives another clue for
> patterns I feed to "git grep" to latch onto, and help my eyes to
> scan and tell decls and defns apart in the output.
With this argument, I think adding "extern" is worth it.
It could help people find the code better.
--
Danh
