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

Reply via email to