> On Nov 5, 2018, at 11:45 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>> ...
>>
>> I can do that, but I'm wondering if some systems have different prototypes
>> than the C standard calls for so I'd end up breaking those.I wouldn't worry
>> about those. I think the bigger question (thanks
> Martin) is whether or not any of those tests are checking for issues
> that arise specifically due to not having a full prototype available
> (and in those cases your fix is probably more appropriate).
>
> Probably the only way to figure that out is to dig into the history of
> each one :( Mighty unpleasant.
>
> jeff
I took a quick look. PR83655 is specifically about an issue due to a
declaration with no prototype, but the others (55890, 71816, 83463, 83603,
84244) are not so clear to me. Still, what IS clear is that none of them are
interested in messages that may or may not be generated as a result of these
funny declarations. In other words, pruning the messages still looks
appropriate.
So where do I go from here? Without the change I can deal with this by
recognizing these cases as false failures when I do my test runs.
paul
