Hi,
On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 11:32:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bertrand Drouvot writes:
> > The buildfarm animal remark makes me think to check with -Wstrict-prototypes
> > and -Wold-style-definition. I just did that and found two more (added in v2
> > attached) that the coccinelle script missed
Bertrand Drouvot writes:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 10:15:41AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Some years ago we had a buildfarm animal that would complain about
>> this construct, so the tree used to be clean. Probably it's just
>> chance that these have only snuck into local functions.
> The buildfar
Committed.
--
nathan
On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 03:53:37PM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> The buildfarm animal remark makes me think to check with -Wstrict-prototypes
> and -Wold-style-definition. I just did that and found two more (added in v2
> attached) that the coccinelle script missed...
>
> Those new two (run_app
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 10:15:41AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Matthias van de Meent writes:
> > I noticed the only changes here are for `static` definitions. Are we
> > just more careful with normal functions, or does the compiler complain
> > more easily about such "incomplete" definitions whe
Matthias van de Meent writes:
> I noticed the only changes here are for `static` definitions. Are we
> just more careful with normal functions, or does the compiler complain
> more easily about such "incomplete" definitions when they're in
> headers or need to be linked against?
Some years ago we
On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 at 15:51, Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> In C standards till C17, func() means "unspecified parameters" while
> func(void)
> means "no parameters". The former disables compile time type checking and was
> marked obsolescent in C99 ([1]).
>
> This patch replaces emp
