------- Comment #11 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 20:43 -------
We unconditionally warn for a prototype following an old-style definition.
The oddity here is that these are in different files, glommed together
with --combine, and so don't represent exactly the same sort of style violation
as the warning is apparently intended to prevent.
I think the point behind comment #9 is that it is important that a prototype
always be visible, because one argument may require widening; in a case like
the sample code, if this were true, it would result in bugs. See the
info node "Prototypes and Old-Style Function Definitions" for details.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tromey at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-11-12 20:43:26
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24068
