aaronpuchert added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/warn-strict-prototypes.c:11
+// function definition with 0 params, no prototype.
+void foo1() {} // expected-warning {{this old-style function definition is not
preceded by a prototype}}
+// function definition with 0 params, prototype.
----------------
aaronpuchert wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > I'd like a few more test cases:
> > ```
> > // Test that a non-prototyped definition with no preceding prototype whines
> > about lacking a preceding prototype
> > void fooN() {} // expected-warning {{this old-style function definition is
> > not preceded by a prototype}}
> >
> > // Test that an existing declaration with no prototype still warns that a
> > corresponding definition with a type list is still not preceded by a
> > prototype.
> > void fooN1(); // expected-warning {{this function declaration is not a
> > prototype}}
> > void fooN1(void) {} // expected-warning {{this old-style function
> > definition is not preceded by a prototype}}
> > ```
> I guess we want the warning only on the declaration of `fooN1`, not the
> definition? Because that's not an old-style function definition.
Yeah, I'm not sure about `fooN1`. We can't emit the warning on the definition
(and I think we also don't need to, as we diagnose that before), and the
warning on the declaration is kind of tested already. (Note that there is also
`-Wmissing-prototypes`.)
But `fooN` definitely makes sense, I'll add that.
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
