http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48091
Eero Tamminen <eerott at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|No warning when given |No warning when given
|function arguments mismatch |function arguments mismatch
|earlier function definition |earlier function definition
|which GCC assumes to be K&R |which GCC assumes to be
| |K&R, even with --std=c99
| |-pedantic
--- Comment #4 from Eero Tamminen <eerott at gmail dot com> 2011-06-23 19:28:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Program:
> ----------
> int test(a, b)
> int a;
> int b;
> {
> return a+b;
> }
> int main(void)
> {
> return test("foo");
> }
> ----------
(In reply to comment #1)
> That's how K&R works. The function definition isn't a prototype.
Right, including an ANSI-C prototype either for:
int test(int a, int b);
or for:
int test(const char *);
Would cause there to be a warning. I would never have though somebody to mix
K&R & ANSI-C like that, but I just noticed that having K&R function
implementations in *.c files with ANSI-C prototypes in headers seems to be e.g.
how Glibc does things...
It still doesn't help with mistakes like "function() { ... }" for people who
have experience with other compilers than GCC. GCC is only compiler with this
dangerous defaulting to K&R interpretation.
