Re: [obv] Make 'disable_display' static.

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> From: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:13:50 +0800
> 
> disable_display is only called by disable_current_display in
> printcmd.c, so we can make it static.  I'll apply it in two days.

Thanks.

I'm not necessarily against this patch, but I have 2 questions to the
forum:

  . why is it a good idea to go hunting for functions not used outside
    its source file and make them static?  I don't see this
    requirement in any coding standards document pertinent to GDB.

  . if this is NOT mandated by any coding standards we try to enforce,
    why is this an "obvious" patch?

The reason I'm asking is that, in general, whoever wrote that function
could have judged it to be generally useful and export-worthy.  IOW,
its non-static type might be a result of deliberate design, not a
historical accident (such as if it was initially static, then made
extern because some other code, which no longer exists, needed it).

Which one is the case in point, only an investigation into "cvs
annotate" or "git annotate" can tell.  If such an investigation _was_
in fact done, it would be a good idea to present it here.

If it turns out that this function was extern from day one, then we
should discuss whether it indeed is worthy of being exported, instead
of defaulting to the "obvious" route based on its current users.

P.S.  This could be judged as bike-shedding, but if the issue is
serious enough to make a patch, it is serious enough to discuss, IMO.