Re: [RFC] CodingGuidelines: mark external declarations with "extern"

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> 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-<.

> 
>         $ 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.