dexonsmith added a comment. In D122895#3511649 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895#3511649>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> 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?), Is it necessary to make `-Wstrict-prototypes` weaker in order to move the newer more pedantic cases to a different name? > 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. Oh, I thought that would catch bugs like this: void longfunctionname(){} void longfunctionnames(int x){ /* do something with x */ } void g(void) { longfunctionname(7); // oops, meant to call longfunctionnames(). } but if it's entirely pedantic (if the call to `longfunctionname(7)` would fail to compile) then I agree it'd be better to silence it unless someone asks for `-pedantic`. 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
