Is the lcl_LocalFunction naming convention useful?

[Michael Meeks]

Hi Tor,

On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 09:29 +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> Anyway, my main point was not that we should drop the "lcl_" prefix,
> but that we should make these functions *actually* local, also for the
> tool-chain, i.e. either static or in anonymous namespaces.

	Amen - we should static-ise them all :-)

	Of course; many of them would previously have had hidden visibility and
thus cause no problems for a 'normal' build, as they'd be elided before
run-time linking but ... ;-)

	I had a tool that would run over all .so's and generate lists of
duplicate symbols which you prolly want to run across the code-base to
dig out all the duplicates: it's a nasty perl thing but let me dig it
out for you.

	Thanks !

		Michael.

-- 
michael.meeks at suse.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot