aaron.ballman added a comment. In D66919#1650174 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66919#1650174>, @dexonsmith wrote:
> This could cause a lot of churn in existing projects (especially with `static > void foo()`), without giving Clang any new information. I'm wary of this. Those projects likely aren't aware they're using prototypeless functions, which are trivial to call incorrectly. I suspect this diagnostic will find real bugs in code. >> Zero-parameter K&R definitions specify that the function has no >> parameters, but they are still not prototypes, so calling the function >> with the wrong number of parameters is just a warning, not an error. > > Why not just directly give an error for the problematic case? We could carve > out a `-W` flag (if it doesn't already exist) that warns if you incorrectly > pass parameters to a function whose definition has no prototype, and then > make it `-Werror`-by-default. It's not incorrect to pass arguments to a function without a prototype, so that should not be an error. It is incorrect to pass the wrong number or types of arguments to a function without a prototype. It's not a bad idea to error in that circumstances, but there's no solution for `extern void foo()` where we don't see the actual definition. If this turns out to be chatty in practice, we could put it under its own diagnostic flag (-Wstrict-prototype-no-params or something). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66919/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66919 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
