Demi Marie Obenour writes: > On 9/21/25 12:13, Alyssa Ross wrote: >> Demi Marie Obenour writes: >> >>> On 9/21/25 04:55, Alyssa Ross wrote: >>>> Demi Marie Obenour writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/19/25 07:55, Alyssa Ross wrote: >>>>>> Demi Marie Obenour writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This detected a missing prototype. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No functional change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Demi Marie Obenour >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> tools/meson.build | 2 ++ >>>>>>> tools/start-vmm/ch.h | 1 + >>>>>>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/meson.build b/tools/meson.build >>>>>>> index 9cebd03e323531fca7600cacf120161a98de16c5..8262f3e01d7bd56561306d7dd4650a22ca40ebe7 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/tools/meson.build >>>>>>> +++ b/tools/meson.build >>>>>>> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ project('spectrum-tools', 'c', >>>>>>> }) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> add_project_arguments('-Wno-error=attributes', language : 'c') >>>>>>> +add_project_arguments('-Werror=missing-prototypes', language : 'c') >>>>>>> +add_project_arguments('-Werror=missing-declarations', language : 'c') >>>>>>> >>>>>>> if get_option('host') >>>>>>> add_languages('rust') >>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/start-vmm/ch.h b/tools/start-vmm/ch.h >>>>>>> index 7230913ef0abf41a4f712ac4a543c7f7fdecec0f..5431365e6e2894cdebae22a9a44e2ccf1222e0d2 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/tools/start-vmm/ch.h >>>>>>> +++ b/tools/start-vmm/ch.h >>>>>>> @@ -8,3 +8,4 @@ struct net_config { >>>>>>> char id[18]; >>>>>>> uint8_t mac[6]; >>>>>>> }; >>>>>>> +struct net_config net_setup(const char name[static 1], int name_len); >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do we need to declare this in a C header? It's only used from Rust. >>>>> >>>>> Ideally the Rust declarations would be generated from the C ones >>>>> using bindgen. Also, this catches genuine bugs on the C side. >>>> >>>> What bugs? Implicit definitions are already disallowed, aren't they? >>> >>> Function declared in one file, defined in another file with different >>> prototype. This makes it undefined behavior to call. >> >> I don't see how this really enforces that? Fundamentally the problem >> there is conflicting prototypes, not missing ones. If you had another >> compilation unit that didn't include the header with the prototype, and >> instead make its own declaration, you'd still have the same problem. If >> we have a norm of not declaring functions outside of the header file >> that corresponds to and is included by the implementation file, that >> prevents that from happening regardless of whether we have these errors, >> assuming that the compiler would still catch the prototype not matching >> the implementation. > > It also catches cases where a function or variable should have been marked > static. Okay, I /am/ bad at remembering to mark functions as static, and I guess there's not really a better way to avoid that, so happy to take it with that rationale. Happy for me to just adjust the commit message to mention that?