jyknight created this revision.
jyknight added reviewers: rsmith, arphaman.
Herald added a project: clang.
Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
This case should emit an -Wimplicit-function-declaration warning.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59711
Files:
clang/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
clang/test/Sema/warn-strict-prototypes.c
Index: clang/test/Sema/warn-strict-prototypes.c
===================================================================
--- clang/test/Sema/warn-strict-prototypes.c
+++ clang/test/Sema/warn-strict-prototypes.c
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i386-pc-unknown -fsyntax-only -Wstrict-prototypes
-verify %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i386-pc-unknown -fsyntax-only -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wno-implicit-function-declaration -verify %s
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i386-pc-unknown -fsyntax-only -Wstrict-prototypes
-fdiagnostics-parseable-fixits %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
// function declaration with unspecified params
@@ -71,3 +71,9 @@
// rdar://problem/33251668
void foo13(...) __attribute__((overloadable));
void foo13(...) __attribute__((overloadable)) {}
+
+// We should not generate a strict-prototype warning for an implicit
+// declaration. Leave that up to the implicit-function-declaration warning.
+void foo14(void) {
+ foo14_call(); // no-warning
+}
Index: clang/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
===================================================================
--- clang/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
+++ clang/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
@@ -4995,7 +4995,10 @@
break;
case DeclaratorChunk::Function: {
const DeclaratorChunk::FunctionTypeInfo &FTI = DeclType.Fun;
- if (FTI.NumParams == 0 && !FTI.isVariadic)
+ // We supress the warning when there's no LParen location, as this
+ // indicates the declaration was an implicit declaration, which gets
+ // warned about separately via -Wimplicit-function-declaration.
+ if (FTI.NumParams == 0 && !FTI.isVariadic &&
FTI.getLParenLoc().isValid())
S.Diag(DeclType.Loc, diag::warn_strict_prototypes)
<< IsBlock
<< FixItHint::CreateInsertion(FTI.getRParenLoc(), "void");
Index: clang/test/Sema/warn-strict-prototypes.c
===================================================================
--- clang/test/Sema/warn-strict-prototypes.c
+++ clang/test/Sema/warn-strict-prototypes.c
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i386-pc-unknown -fsyntax-only -Wstrict-prototypes -verify %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i386-pc-unknown -fsyntax-only -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-implicit-function-declaration -verify %s
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i386-pc-unknown -fsyntax-only -Wstrict-prototypes -fdiagnostics-parseable-fixits %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
// function declaration with unspecified params
@@ -71,3 +71,9 @@
// rdar://problem/33251668
void foo13(...) __attribute__((overloadable));
void foo13(...) __attribute__((overloadable)) {}
+
+// We should not generate a strict-prototype warning for an implicit
+// declaration. Leave that up to the implicit-function-declaration warning.
+void foo14(void) {
+ foo14_call(); // no-warning
+}
Index: clang/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
===================================================================
--- clang/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
+++ clang/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
@@ -4995,7 +4995,10 @@
break;
case DeclaratorChunk::Function: {
const DeclaratorChunk::FunctionTypeInfo &FTI = DeclType.Fun;
- if (FTI.NumParams == 0 && !FTI.isVariadic)
+ // We supress the warning when there's no LParen location, as this
+ // indicates the declaration was an implicit declaration, which gets
+ // warned about separately via -Wimplicit-function-declaration.
+ if (FTI.NumParams == 0 && !FTI.isVariadic && FTI.getLParenLoc().isValid())
S.Diag(DeclType.Loc, diag::warn_strict_prototypes)
<< IsBlock
<< FixItHint::CreateInsertion(FTI.getRParenLoc(), "void");
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
