* Gerald Pfeifer: >> This mostly happens in function definitions >> +that are not prototypes > > Naive questions: Can definitions really be prototypes (in C)?
Yes, I think so: definitions can be declarations, and function prototypes are declarations. The standard uses the phrase “function definition that does not include a function prototype declarator”. Should I write “old-style function definition” instead? > >> +declared outside the parameter list. Using the correct >> +type maybe required to avoid int-conversion errors (see below). > > Something feels odd with this sentence? The fix is to write “may[ ]be“, as suggested by other reviewers. >> +Incorrectly spelled type names in function declarations are treated as >> +errors in more cases, under a >> +new <code>-Wdeclaration-missing-parameter-type</code> warning. The >> +second line in the following example is now treated as an error >> +(previously this resulted in an unnamed warning): > > What is an "unnamed" warning? Can we simply omit "unnamed" here? A warning not controlled by a specific -W… option. I've made the change. >> +GCC will type-check function arguments after that, potentially >> +requiring further changes. (Previously, the function declaration was >> +treated as not having no prototype.) > > That second sentence uses double negation, which logically is the same as > just the original statement. Other reviews suggests to change it to “not having [a] prototype”. >> +<p> >> +By default, GCC still accepts returning an expression of >> +type <code>void</code> from within a function that itself >> +returns <code>void</code>, as a GNU extension that matches C++ rules >> +in this area. > > Does the GNU extension match C++ (standard rules)? Yes. Should I write “matches [standard] C++ rules”? Thanks, Florian
