aaron.ballman added a comment. In D122895#3511855 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895#3511855>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D122895#3511646 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895#3511646>, @dexonsmith > wrote: > >> void f1(void (^block)()); >> >> void f2(void) { >> f1(^(int x) { /* do something with x */ }); >> } > > Your code example is interesting though as I would expect that to trigger > `-Wdeprecated-non-prototype` as well as `-Wstrict-prototypes`. I'd expect the > pedantic warning to complain about the block declaration because it specifies > no prototype, and I'd expect the changes behavior warning because that code > will break in C2x. I think the current behavior today makes sense but we should see if we can improve it to make *more* sense. With `-Wstrict-prototypes`, we should complain about the block without a prototype, but the use at the call site is not declaring a conflicting declaration nor is it a call to a function without a prototype but passes arguments (both of those are `-Wdeprecated-non-prototype` warnings). Instead, it's a new kind of situation that we may want to consider adding additional coverage for under `-Wdeprecated-non-prototype` based on the same reasoning we used for diagnosing calls to a function without a prototype but pass arguments. This is not specific to blocks, consider: void func(void (*fp)()); void do_it(int i); int main(void) { func(do_it); // It'd be nice to diagnose this too, but we don't today } 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
