jyknight added a comment. In D122983#3454406 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122983#3454406>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D122983#3452994 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122983#3452994>, @rsmith wrote: > >> I think we should just make this an error by default in C99 onwards; > > Out of curiosity -- do you think we should remove the `DefaultIgnore` in C89 > mode so that we warn by default there (perhaps as a follow up)? Also, I > presume you expect `diag::ext_implicit_lib_function_decl` to behave the same > way (warn in C89, warn-as-err in C99 and up) as part of this patch? I'm not sure what purpose it'd serve to change -std=c89 to be more strict at this point. It's not the default compilation mode, and the code is actually valid under that standard. IMO, adding such a on-by-default warning there would only serve to annoy folks explicitly trying to build super-old code with a super-old standards version. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122983/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122983 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
