[Bug c/48091] No warning when given function arguments mismatch earlier function definition which GCC assumes to be K, even with --std=c99 -pedantic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48091 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c/48091] No warning when given function arguments mismatch earlier function definition which GCC assumes to be K, even with --std=c99 -pedantic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48091 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2017-01-23 00:00:00 |2020-5-19 CC|

[Bug c/48091] No warning when given function arguments mismatch earlier function definition which GCC assumes to be K, even with --std=c99 -pedantic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48091 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- OK, but as the reporter of 64526 said, we should warn at least. We know the number of parameters (even if there isn't a prototype) and we know the number of arguments doesn't match it. That warrants a

[Bug c/48091] No warning when given function arguments mismatch earlier function definition which GCC assumes to be K, even with --std=c99 -pedantic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48091 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|accepts-invalid | --- Comment #7 from Joseph S. Myers

[Bug c/48091] No warning when given function arguments mismatch earlier function definition which GCC assumes to be K, even with --std=c99 -pedantic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48091 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- Even if it's not invalid we should warn when we know the function has no parameters and it's called with arguments.

[Bug c/48091] No warning when given function arguments mismatch earlier function definition which GCC assumes to be K, even with --std=c99 -pedantic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48091 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid