paulsemel added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/Sema/builtin-dump-struct.c:8 + void *b; + int (*goodfunc)(const char *, ...); + int (*badfunc1)(const char *); ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > paulsemel wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > paulsemel wrote: > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > Can you also add a test for: `int (*badfunc4)(char *, ...);` and `int > > > > > (*badfunc5)();` > > > > Isn't `int (*func)()` is a valid prototype for a printf like function > > > > in C ? > > > > I instead added `int (*func)(void)` to the test cases. > > > > Isn't int (*func)() is a valid prototype for a printf like function in > > > > C ? > > > > > > No, because it's missing the `const char *` as the mandatory first > > > parameter. Do you want that to be allowed and hope the callee has it > > > correct on their side, or do you want it to diagnose as not being a valid > > > function? > > Actually, from a kernel developer perspective, I would say it's better to > > let the user do its stuff on his side, because kernel is full of trick ! > > But if you think I'd rather check whether we have `int (*)(const char *, > > ...)` at any time, we can go for it ! > Okay, if you think it'd be beneficial to allow a function without a > prototype, I'm okay with it. Can you make it an explicit "good" test case? Sure :) Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D44093 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
