aaron.ballman marked 2 inline comments as done. aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp:6667 + // have an identifier list. + HasProto = ParamInfo.size() || getLangOpts().requiresStrictPrototypes() || + getLangOpts().OpenCL; ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > rsmith wrote: > > Hm, so `-fstrict-prototypes` causes us to treat `void f()` as `void > > f(void)`? That's not normally how our `-fstrict-` flags work: normally they > > mean "strictly enforce this language rule, even though that may result in > > programs having UB that we could define away with a more permissive rule". > > (For example, `-fstrict-aliasing`, `-fstrict-float-cast-overflow`, > > `-fstrict-enums`, `-fstrict-overflow`, `-fstrict-vtable-pointers`, > > `-fstrict-return` all work like that.) I wonder if a different flag name > > would work better, eg `-fno-unprototyped-functions`. Is > > `-fstrict-prototypes` a GCC flag that we're trying to be compatible with, > > or our own invention? > > > > If you can't find a better name, I'm not dead set against the current one, > > but it does seem a little inconsistent. > > Hm, so -fstrict-prototypes causes us to treat void f() as void f(void)? > > Yup, the idea is that it is strictly enforcing that all functions have a > prototype. > > > Is -fstrict-prototypes a GCC flag that we're trying to be compatible with, > > or our own invention? > > It's our invention, and I'm not strongly tied to the name. It's the one that > came up during the RFC and I suspect it's influenced by the name of the > warning group `-Wstrict-prototypes`. > > I think `-fno-` would be a bit of a weird way to spell the flag as that > usually disables something rather than enables it. I'll switch to > `-fforce-prototypes` because that's basically what this does. WDYT? After a bunch of off-list discussion with @tahonermann and @erichkeane, we landed on `-fno-knr-functions` as the proposed new name for the flag. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D123955/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D123955 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
