[RFC] -Wredundant-decls: keep it or remove it?

[Bruce Evans]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Craig Rodrigues wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:32:08PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
>> weird cases are left.  I can't see any reason not to use simply:
>>
>> 	/* Don't warn about a definition following a declaration.  */
>> 	if (DECL_INITIAL (newdecl) && !DECL_INITIAL (olddecl)))
>>
>> since a definition (i.e., a declaration with an initializer) following
>> a declaration (i.e., a tentative definition) can never be redundant.
>
>
> I think you are right.  I submitted a modified patch based on what you
> suggested here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg00006.html
>
> and got approval for it on the GCC mainline here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg00019.html
>
> I'll try to get it into GCC soon.

Thanks.

Bruce