aaronpuchert marked 5 inline comments as done.
aaronpuchert added a comment.
Thanks!
================
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.
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> aaronpuchert wrote:
> > 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.
> I think you're right about the `fooN1` definition not needing a warning -- I
> was thinking we wanted to warn because there was no preceding prototype, but
> it's not an old-style declaration at that definition. You can ignore that
> suggestion.
Ok, then I'll submit this with `fooN`.
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
