steakhal marked 2 inline comments as done.
steakhal added a comment.
In D136162#3874953 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D136162#3874953>, @martong wrote:
> Thanks for the update. Nice Work!
Thanks! I'll land this tomorrow.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/region-store.c:66
+ // expected-warning@+1 {{passing arguments to 'b' without a prototype is
deprecated in all versions of C and is not supported in C2x}}
+ b(&buffer);
+}
----------------
martong wrote:
> steakhal wrote:
> > NoQ wrote:
> > > steakhal wrote:
> > > > tomasz-kaminski-sonarsource wrote:
> > > > > tomasz-kaminski-sonarsource wrote:
> > > > > > I would like to see an example where the called function is
> > > > > > implicitly defined.
> > > > > After rethinking it, I have not idea how to construct that example.
> > > > I could not construct such an example.
> > > > It seems like clang errors out for cases when an implicit declaration
> > > > of a call mismatches with the definition of that function.
> > > > https://godbolt.org/z/rM9ajeTf7
> > > Yeah, if you scroll really far to the right, you'll see that the first
> > > error is actually a warning auto-promoted to an error. So you can pass
> > > `-Wno-implicit-function-declaration` and it'll disappear. Not sure what
> > > to do with the other error though, it really does notice that the
> > > implicit definition conflicts with the later explicit definition. So,
> > > dunno.
> > Yup, I should have been more clear on this. See the test, I'm also passing
> > the `-Wno-implicit-function-declaration` :)
> > Maybe Shafik or Aaron knows some weird stuff about how to make it
> > 'compile'. WDYT?
> Interestingly, GCC trunk compiles it without errors, the warnings are there
> though.
Hm, interesting.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136162/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136162
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
