efriedma added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/warn-strict-prototypes.m:20
+ // know it's a block when diagnosing.
+ void (^block2)(void) = ^void() { // expected-warning {{a function
declaration without a prototype is deprecated in all versions of C}}
};
----------------
dexonsmith wrote:
> dexonsmith wrote:
> > This is a definition, so the compiler knows that there are no parameters.
> > Why would we warn here? Reading
> > https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-enabling-wstrict-prototypes-by-default-in-c/60521/18
> > it looks to me like an example of what @rnk was referring to, about
> > churning code to add `(void)` and then return back to `()` later.
> >
> > (cc: @steven_wu and @rjmccall as well)
> Specifically, `^void() { /* anything */}` is the definition of a block with
> zero parameters. Maybe pedantically it's lacking a prototype, but the
> compiler knows (since this is the definition) how many parameters there are.
>
> (Same goes for `void() { /* anything */ }` at global scope; is that
> triggering `-Wstrict-prototypes` now too?)
To be clear, you're asking specifically about the following two cases where the
behavior with -Wstrict-prototypes changed, right? I don't think this was
really discussed in the RFC.
```
// Block
void (^f1)(void) = ^(){};
// Function definition
void f(void);
void f(){}
```
Note that the behavior of the following did not change:
```
void (^f1)(void) = ^{}; // no warning
void f2(){} // warning since clang 11.
```
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
