https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108694
--- Comment #4 from Bruno Haible ---
(In reply to Aaron Ballman from comment #3)
OK. So, except for this unlucky (*) choice of attribution in case of a conflict
between function declaration and function definition, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108694
--- Comment #3 from Aaron Ballman ---
(In reply to Bruno Haible from comment #2)
> But '-Wdeprecated-non-prototype' does not exactly have the behaviour you
> want: while it warns for 'func1 (1);' and 'func3 (3);' (good!), it warns
> also for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108694
--- Comment #2 from Bruno Haible ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #1)
> “()” is going to be fine when matched with an empty parameter list in a
> definition, or an empty argument list in a call. I don't think it's
> necessary to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-linux-gnu|
Host|x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108694
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
