https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87656
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> Note, what is most important with this are configure scripts, if we start
> warning on something still widely used in configure snippets, we'll get
> silently different results of configure checks.
A configure check that isn't specifically for some warning) that gives
different
results if some random warning happens, is fundamentally broken already. I
would
hope existing checks are more robust (but I certainly believe they are not :-(
)
> For old style definitions, the question is if we want to warn about
> void foo () {} style of functions or just those which actually have some
> arguments.
We can have a =2 to warn for everything, and =1 for just the more serious
things?
Easy to switch default for -Wall and -W that way, too.
