aaron.ballman added a comment. In D122895#3482555 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895#3482555>, @tahonermann wrote:
>> I think it's debatable whether this is a bug or not > > For C99 through C17, I kind of agree, but for C2x (where the warning is still > issued with `-Wstrict-prototypes`), my understanding is that `void foo(void)` > and `void foo()` are equivalent; there is no unprototyped declaration. I > think the diagnostic should at least be suppressed for C2x since we don't > want to encourage programmers to explicitly add `void` when targeting that > standard. Good catch... `-Wstrict-prototypes` should be a noop in C2x mode! I'll work on fixing that. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
