aaron.ballman added a comment. In D122895#3482575 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895#3482575>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> 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. I fixed that issue in ef87865b98fa25af1d2c045bab1268b2a1503374 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGef87865b98fa25af1d2c045bab1268b2a1503374>, thanks for catching it. 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
