[Bug c/82922] Request: add -Wstrict-prototypes to -Wextra as K&R style is obsolescent

[Bug c/82922] Request: add -Wstrict-prototypes to -Wextra as K&R style is obsolescent

[david at westcontrol dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82922

--- Comment #9 from David Brown <david at westcontrol dot com> ---
Could -Wstrict-prototypes be added to -Wall, or even considered enabling by
default?  The next C standard will make "void foo()" mean the same as "void
foo(void)", like in C++, which makes the scope for confusion high.

[Bug c/82922] Request: add -Wstrict-prototypes to -Wextra as K&R style is obsolescent

[sam at gentoo dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82922

--- Comment #10 from Sam James <sam at gentoo dot org> ---
(In reply to David Brown from comment #9)
> Could -Wstrict-prototypes be added to -Wall, or even considered enabling by
> default?  The next C standard will make "void foo()" mean the same as "void
> foo(void)", like in C++, which makes the scope for confusion high.

Yes please, given Clang has done this (or essentially this, and added its own
-Wdeprecated-non-prototype):
- https://lwn.net/Articles/913505/
-
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/configure-script-breakage-with-the-new-werror-implicit-function-declaration/65213
-
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/dd9f2d3082b8b6f8dfbccb0639e6e240

Anything which makes it easier to spot things which are going to become fatal
in future is a good idea. Otherwise we'll have a headache now with Clang and a
headache in a few years when defaults shift to c23.

[Bug c/82922] Request: add -Wstrict-prototypes to -Wextra as K&R style is obsolescent

[fw at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82922

--- Comment #11 from Florian Weimer <fw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to David Brown from comment #9)
> Could -Wstrict-prototypes be added to -Wall, or even considered enabling by
> default?  The next C standard will make "void foo()" mean the same as "void
> foo(void)", like in C++, which makes the scope for confusion high.

I think the churn from changing void foo() to void foo(void) to avoid the
warning is too high, and unnecessary for the upcoming C language change. A more
target warning could make sense, though.

[Bug c/82922] Request: add -Wstrict-prototypes to -Wextra as K&R style is obsolescent

[sam at gentoo dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82922

--- Comment #12 from Sam James <sam at gentoo dot org> ---
GCC lacks an equivalent for Clang's -Wdeprecated-non-prototype, right?

[Bug c/82922] Request: add -Wstrict-prototypes to -Wextra as K&R style is obsolescent

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82922

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #11)
> (In reply to David Brown from comment #9)
> > Could -Wstrict-prototypes be added to -Wall, or even considered enabling by
> > default?  The next C standard will make "void foo()" mean the same as "void
> > foo(void)", like in C++, which makes the scope for confusion high.
> 
> I think the churn from changing void foo() to void foo(void) to avoid the
> warning is too high, and unnecessary for the upcoming C language change. A
> more target warning could make sense, though.

And even with a more targetted warning we need to be careful about configure
scripts with unprototyped functions.