aaron.ballman added a comment.
In D122895#3511632 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895#3511632>, @jyknight wrote:
> The warnings for this case aren't great:
>
> int foo();
>
> int
> foo(int arg) {
> return 5;
> }
Yeah, that's not ideal, I'm looking into it to see if I can improve that
scenario or not. Thankfully, IMO, such code is likely to be extremely rare.
Most people writing that declaration either expect an arbitrary number of args
(they really don't want the prototype) and so the definition is extremely
suspect that it only accepts one, or they wrote the declaration assuming it
would accept *no* args (the C++ behavior) and then the definition becomes
flat-out a bug. Do you have evidence this code pattern appears with some
frequency?
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
