aaron.ballman added a comment. In D122895#3511611 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895#3511611>, @dexonsmith wrote:
> Sure, I'm all for adding a new warning for users that want a pedantic > warning. Can it be put behind a separate flag, such as > `-Wstrict-prototypes-pedantic`, which isn't triggered by > `-Wstrict-prototypes`? > > Previously, `-Wstrict-prototypes` was useful for preventing actual bugs in > code. Doing that would then make `-Wstrict-prototypes` effectively a no-op (it would still control `-Wdeprecated-non-prototype` I suppose?), but there were also people who enabled `-Wstrict-prototypes` because they wanted the pedantic aspects of the warning in cases where it was firing, and those folks would then be losing warning coverage without knowing it. For example: void f(){} In prior versions of Clang with `-Wstrict-prototypes` this would issue a `this old-style function definition is not preceded by a prototype` diagnostic, but would now be silenced entirely unless the user knew to turn on a different flag. 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