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
