isuckatcs wrote: > IIUC the clang-diagnostic-strict-prototypes check on its own doesn't enable > the warning, but what if it did?
I quickly implemented this idea. WDYT? > [-Wpre-c23-compat](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#wpre-c23-compat) > warning. [...] (it seems to only warn on language features that are > _invalid_ in previous versions, not _change meaning_ in previous versions). I > wonder if we should extend that warning? Interesting question TBH. The warning warns on binary literals, but pre C23 code still compiles with binary literals even though it is _invalid_. I wonder if it happens because there is a [GNU extension](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-5.3.0/gcc/Binary-constants.html#Binary-constants) that allows them, but still the code compiles with `-std=c11`, not just `-std=gnu11`. Also, even MSVC [seems to accept](https://godbolt.org/z/1Tsadh98v) them. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/161023 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
