dexonsmith added a subscriber: arphaman. dexonsmith added a comment. In D122895#3511376 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895#3511376>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D122895#3511312 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895#3511312>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> However, I think the blocks behavior is a bug based on this: >> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp#L728 >> and I'd be more than happy to fix that, as I'm not checking that condition >> here: >> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp#L5579 >> which seems like a pretty obvious thing to be checking for before warning >> about not having a strict prototype. > > I fixed this false positive bug in 4be105c98a9c7e083cd878ee1751e11160b97b4a > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG4be105c98a9c7e083cd878ee1751e11160b97b4a>, so > blocks (and OpenCL) behavior should now be improved. Thanks! I think that's the bigger issue of the two. @steven_wu or @arphaman will have more context though. In D122895#3511312 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895#3511312>, @aaron.ballman wrote: > In D122895#3510165 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895#3510165>, @dexonsmith > wrote: > >> For additional context to my questions above, even though open source clang >> hasn't been using `-Wstrict-prototypes`, Xcode has had it on-by-default in >> new projects since sometime in 2017, with project modernizations to turn it >> on for old projects. > > Thanks, that's very good to know! And also, thank you for raising the > questions here, I appreciate the discussion. > >> Warning on block and function definitions such as `^(){}` and `void f1() >> {}`, which are pedantically lacking a prototype but the compiler knows there >> are exactly zero parameters, would be super noisy for users. >> >> Unless I read the RFC too quickly, it doesn't look like it's adding any >> value, since these aren't going to change meaning. Is it possible to revert >> this part of the change? > > `-Wstrict-prototypes` is now a pedantic deprecation warning that fires any > time you form a function type which has no prototype, which was discussed in > the RFC > (https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-enabling-wstrict-prototypes-by-default-in-c/60521/38?u=aaronballman): > > Change -Wstrict-prototypes to diagnose functions without a prototype that > don’t change behavior in C2x, it remains off-by-default but is automatically > enabled by -pedantic as it’s still warning the user about a deprecation. > > However, I think the blocks behavior is a bug based on this: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp#L728 > and I'd be more than happy to fix that, as I'm not checking that condition > here: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp#L5579 > which seems like a pretty obvious thing to be checking for before warning > about not having a strict prototype. > > But I'm pretty insistent on warning about the other case as it does use > functions without a prototype and we need *some* blanket warning for use of a > deprecated feature for folks who want to be strictly conforming. It sounds > like Apple may want to no longer enable `-Wstrict-prototypes` by default as > it's shifted to be a more pedantic warning than it was before -- would that > be a viable option for you (can you use project modernizations to turn it > back off for old projects)? Sure, I'm all for adding a new warning for users that want a pedantic warning. Can it be put behind a separate flag, such as `-Wstrict-prototypes-pedantic`, which isn't triggered by `-Wstrict-prototypes`? Previously, `-Wstrict-prototypes` was useful for preventing actual bugs in code. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
