Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, 2023-06-02 at 20:52 +0200, Arsen Arsenović via Gcc-help wrote:
>> I was referring to -Werror=implicit-function-declaration,
>> -Werror=implicit-int, -Werror=incompatible-function-pointer-types, and
>> -Werror=strict-prototypes, which don't share the usual problems of
>> -Werror (by being explicit, not something that's likely to change, and
>> reasonable practice IMO :-) ).
>
> -Werror=strict-prototypes is too strict IMO. It will even break:
>
> int test() { return 0; }
Indeed, but I tend not to mind this in my code (falling into the latter
clause in parentheses above).
> But the entire point of the C2X change about the prototype w/o a
> parameter list is to make such thing reasonable, isn't it?
>
> I guess we actually want a new warning option, like:
>
> extern int f(); // ok
> int g() { return f(); } // ok
> int h() { return f(1, 2); } // { dg-warning "the usage of non-strict prototype will be rejected by C2x" }
There might be relevant discussion on https://gcc.gnu.org/PR108694.
--
Arsen Arsenović
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
