[Bug c/108694] New: need a new warning option for preparing migration to ISO C 23

[Bug c/108694] New: need a new warning option for preparing migration to ISO C 23

[bruno at clisp dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108694

            Bug ID: 108694
           Summary: need a new warning option for preparing migration to
                    ISO C 23
           Product: gcc
           Version: 12.2.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: bruno at clisp dot org
  Target Milestone: ---

The use of () to denote an unknown or varargs parameter list in function
declarations and function types, a language feature from K&R C, is finally
disallowed in ISO C 23. Instead, () as a parameter list denotes a list of zero
arguments, the same as (void), in ISO C 23.

The set of warnings that were added to GCC over the years, regarding function
prototypes, were designed at a time when the migration target was still
unknown. Now that the migration target, ISO C 23, is known, some projects want
to have the following programming style, for code that compiles OK both in C99
and C23:
- (1) In function definitions, use () to denote argument lists with zero
arguments.
- (2) In function declarations and function types, use (void) to denote
argument lists with zero arguments.
See https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2023-02/msg00055.html and
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2023-02/msg00062.html for details
of the rationale.

As a programmer, I would like to have an easy way to get warnings when this
programming style is not followed.

There are two ways such a warning could be added to GCC:

(A) A warning that applies when compiling for a language standard older than
C23 (e.g. -std=gnu99).

In which situations would this warning be emitted?
=========================================================================
/* Function definitions: */
void func1 () {} /* No warning */
void func2 (void) {} /* No warning */
/* Function declarations: */
void func3 (); /* warning: an empty parameter list in function declarators will
have a different meaning in ISO C23 */
void func4 (void); /* No warning */
=========================================================================

Looking through the existing warning options of GCC and clang:

Warning options from https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html
Option                      Not adequate because ...
-----------------------     ------------------------
-Wall                       Does not warn for func3.
-Wstrict-prototypes         Warns for func1 as well.
-Wold-style-declaration     Does not warn for func3.
-Wold-style-definition      Does not warn for func3. Warns for func1.
-Wmissing-prototypes        Does not warn for func3. Warns for func1 and func2.
-Wmissing-declarations      Does not warn for func3. Warns for func1 and func2.
-Wpedantic                  Does not warn for func3.

Warning options from https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html
Option                      Not adequate because ...
-----------------------     ------------------------
-Wall                       Does not warn for func3.
-Wdeprecated-declarations   Does not warn for func3.
-Wdeprecated-non-prototype  Does not warn for func3.
-Wmissing-prototypes        Does not warn for func3. Warns for func1 and func2.
-Wpedantic                  Warns for func1 as well.

So, none of these existing warning options fits the need. A new warning option
is needed.

(B) A warning that applies when compiling for C23 (e.g. -std=gnu23).

The situations would be the same as above. Only the diagnostic's message would
refer to *older* standard versions, such as:
=========================================================================
/* Function definitions: */
void func1 () {} /* No warning */
void func2 (void) {} /* No warning */
/* Function declarations: */
void func3 (); /* warning: an empty parameter list in function declarators
denotes a varargs parameter list in ISO C17 and older; use (void) to
disambiguate */
void func4 (void); /* No warning */
=========================================================================

[Bug c/108694] need a new warning option for preparing migration to ISO C 23

[fw at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108694

Florian Weimer <fw at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fw at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer <fw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Clang now has -Wdeprecated-non-prototype apparently:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/unresolved-issues-from-the-llvm-15-x-release/66071/36

This is probably not very useful as a warning:

> void func3 (); /* warning: an empty parameter list in function declarators will have a different meaning in ISO C23 */

“()” 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 warn in those cases. It distracts from the real issue.

[Bug c/108694] need a new warning option for preparing migration to ISO C 23

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108694

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Target|x86_64-linux-gnu            |
               Host|x86_64-linux-gnu            |
              Build|x86_64-linux-gnu            |
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement

[Bug c/108694] need a new warning option for preparing migration to ISO C 23

[bruno at clisp dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108694

--- Comment #2 from Bruno Haible <bruno at clisp dot org> ---
(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 warn in those cases. It distracts from the real issue.

OK. So let's see what we get with this approach where 'void func3 ();' doesn't
warn and only the wrong uses of func3 produce diagnostics. Here's a test case,
annotated with 'error' in those places where 'clang15 -std=c2x' produces an
error:

=============================================================================
/* Function definitions: */
void func1 () {}
void func2 (void) {}
/* Function declarations: */
void func3 ();
void func4 (void);

void code ()
{
  void (*fp) (void);
  void (*fp1) (int);

  fp = func1;
  fp = func2;
  fp = func3;
  fp = func4;

  fp1 = func3;

  func1 (1); /* error */
  func2 (2); /* error */
  func3 (3); /* error */
  func4 (4); /* error */

  (void) fp;
  (void) fp1;
}

void func3 (int x, int y) {} /* error */
=============================================================================

When compiling this in -std=c17 or older mode, we would like to get a warning
- in those places where we get an error in C23 mode, and
- in those places where there are unsafe conversions or parameter passing going
on in C23 or in C17 or older.
In detail, the desired behaviour in -std=c17 or older mode is:

=============================================================================
/* Function definitions: */
void func1 () {} /* No warning */
void func2 (void) {} /* No warning */
/* Function declarations: */
void func3 (); /* No warning */
void func4 (void); /* No warning */

void code ()
{
  void (*fp) (void);
  void (*fp1) (int);

  fp = func1; /* No warning */
  fp = func2; /* No warning */
  fp = func3; /* No warning */
  fp = func4; /* No warning */

  fp1 = func3; /* warning */

  func1 (1); /* warning (if -std=c17) or error (if -std=c23) */
  func2 (2); /* error */
  func3 (3); /* warning (if -std=c17) or error (if -std=c23) */
  func4 (4); /* error */

  (void) fp;
  (void) fp1;
}

void func3 (int x, int y) {} /* warning (if -std=c17) or error (if -std=c23) */
=============================================================================

In the line 'fp1 = func3;' a warning should be shown because it's an unsafe
function pointer conversion in C23. (Even though in C17 it is not dangerous
code and even though in C23 it's not an error!) 'clang15 -std=c2x
-Wincompatible-function-pointer-types' does show a "warning: incompatible
function pointer types" there.

> Clang now has -Wdeprecated-non-prototype apparently

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
'void func3 ();', that is, where you don't want to see a warning.

So, no existing GCC or clang warning option has the desired behaviour. What we
need (and even independently of programming style) is
* a part of -Wdeprecated-non-prototype: do warn in function call positions,
don't warn in function declaration/type positions,
* combined with a kind of -Wfuture-incompatible-function-pointer-types, that
considers the interpretation according to C23 instead of the interpretation
according to the currently chosen standard.

[Bug c/108694] need a new warning option for preparing migration to ISO C 23

[aaron at aaronballman dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108694

--- Comment #3 from Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman dot com> ---
(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 'void func3 ();', that is, where you don't want to see a warning.

FWIW, the reason you get a warning on the declaration of `func3` in Clang is
because of the definition of `func3` that is invalid in C2x but was valid in
prior standards modes. If you do not provide a problematic conflicting
definition, the diagnostic is silenced: https://godbolt.org/z/aMPrvWz1j

[Bug c/108694] need a new warning option for preparing migration to ISO C 23

[bruno at clisp dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108694

--- Comment #4 from Bruno Haible <bruno at clisp dot org> ---
(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
'-Wdeprecated-non-prototype' warning is actually usable.

What we need is thus:
* -Wdeprecated-non-prototype,
* combined with a kind of -Wfuture-incompatible-function-pointer-types, that
considers the interpretation according to C23 instead of the interpretation
according to the currently chosen standard.

(*) Reported as a clang bug at
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60592 .