On Feb 17, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Feb 17, 2008 10:30 AM, Török Edwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From my reading of the C99 standard (N1256.pdf) calling foo with >> parameters when it is declared as foo() is allowed only if the >> declaration doesn't involve a definition too. >> If it involves a definition, then you can't call it with parameters, >> and foo() is equivalent to foo(void). Is this correct? > > See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_317.htm. > Essentially, executing the call is technically undefined behavior, but > it's a perfectly legal construct. I've filed > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2042 on the issue. > > It looks like your module does actually execute such an undefined > call, so the program technically has undefined behavior. That said, > I've never heard of a C compiler producing code that actually did > anything weird... generally, C calling conventions allow for an > arbitrary number of arguments even if the callee doesn't expect them > for compatibility reasons.
I just checked in a fix for this, -Chris _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
