dexonsmith added a comment. In D66919#1650775 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66919#1650775>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> 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. To be clear, my understanding is that `-Wstrict-prototypes` already warns on non-prototype declarations like this: void foo(); we just don't warn on non-prototype defining declarations, where the meaning is unambiguous: void foo() {} > 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. Given my understanding, then the only corner case that's left is when we *do* see the definition. 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
