delcypher added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:5530 + "calling function %0 with arguments when function has no prototype">, InGroup< + DiagGroup<"strict-calls-without-prototype">>, DefaultIgnore; def warn_missing_variable_declarations : Warning< ---------------- fcloutier wrote: > sp: I think this should be called "strict-call-without-prototype" (singular > call) as most warning flag names seem to prefer singulars. @fcloutier I'm open to renaming the warning. I originally made the warning plural because there were warnings near by that used it. E.g. * `missing-variable-declarations` * `strict-prototypes` * `missing-prototypes` If no one else chimes in I'll make it singular. Also, do you think we should drop the "strict" prefix? I.e. `call-without-prototype` instead of `strict-call-without-prototype`. The reason I'm thinking that using `strict` might be a bad idea is: 1. The warning isn't actually strict. A strict version of the warning would warn on **all calls to functions without prototypes**. We've decided to only warn on calls with arguments to avoid noisy warnings that result from people frequently forgetting to explicitly mark functions as taking no arguments. 2. Calling this warning `strict-call-without-prototype` precludes from adding a stricter version of warning in the future (i.e. we'd be force to name it something like `strict-strict-call-without-prototype` which is super confusing). 3. The intention in a future patch is to enable the warning by default. It seems odd to have a "strict" warning on by default given that there is precedence for doing the opposite (e.g. `-Wstrict-prototypes` is off by default). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D116635/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D116635 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
