On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 13:04:20 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:34:02 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 22:22:18 +0300 > > Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > g++ doesn't like forward enum declarations: > > > > > > error: use of enum ‘E’ without previous declaration > > > 64 | enum E; > > > > But we don't care about g++. Do we? > > It appears that g++ is a useful enum declaration detector. > > I'm curious to know how even the above warning was generated. Does g++ > work at all on Linux? > > > I would make that a separate patch. > > What are you referring to here? The enum change should be separate from the struct changes. > > > > > > > Delete those which aren't used. > > > > > > Delete some unused/unnecessary forward struct declarations for a change. > > > > This is a clean up, but should have a better change log. Just something > > simple like: > > > > Delete unnecessary forward struct declarations. > > Alexey specializes in cute changelogs. eh > > I do have a concern about the patch: has it been tested with all > possible Kconfigs? No. There may be some configs in which the forward > declaration is required. > > And... I'm a bit surprised that forward declarations are allowed in C. > A billion years ago I used a C compiler which would use 16 bits for > an enum if the enumted values would fit in 16 bits. And it would use 32 > bits otherwise. So the enumerated values were *required* for the > compiler to be able to figure out the sizeof. But it was a billion > years ago. Well, I only looked at the one change in ftrace.h which has a "struct seq_file;" that is not used anywhere else in the file, so that one definitely can go. -- Steve
