Thanks Paul, for reviewing what I wrote. Paul Eggert wrote: > > * We should stop compiling with -Wstrict-prototypes and instead (not > > always, > > but frequently enough) compile with the '-std=gnu23' option. Clang > > currently implements it better. GCC 13 may be on par with clang again > > on > > this topic [1]. > > We could have 'configure' check -Wstrict-prototypes specially. If the > compiler complains about the abovementioned style, 'configure' would > omit -Wstrict-prototypes; otherwise it could keep it. The idea is that > eventually GCC will be smart enough so that 'gcc -Wstrict-prototypes' > will do the right thing even when not in C23 mode.
Hmm, that would mean that GCC's implementation of -Wstrict-prototypes, for older -std=... options, would change from GCC 12 to GCC 13. I doubt they will want to do this. Therefore I filed another GCC bug report: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108694 (since https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108690 has already been closed). > > * We need to continue to use (void) in function declarations/types, as > > long > > as we support compilers for ISO C standards before C 23. This will > > probably take 10 or 15 years. > > Alternatively we could define a macro NOARGS that expands to nothing in > C23 and later, and to void otherwise. This might be more trouble than > it's worth, though. That's more troublesome indeed, because such a macro confuses the C parsers that people have built into editors and other tools. Bruno
