From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mengyan1223.wang (mengyan1223.wang [89.208.246.23]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99ACE3858D39 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 19:48:41 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 99ACE3858D39 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-384) server-digest SHA384) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: xry111@mengyan1223.wang) by mengyan1223.wang (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D0F065F69; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 14:48:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Subject: Re: Doubt regarding the PR92209 From: Xi Ruoyao To: Krishna Narayanan , gcc-help Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 03:48:32 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3031.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_NUMSUBJECT, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-help mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 19:48:42 -0000 On Sat, 2022-03-05 at 01:03 +0530, Krishna Narayanan via Gcc-help wrote: > Hello, > I am working on this issue(PR92209) and had a query concerning it,for > this PR I have done by making the required change in text rather than > a fix-it diagnostic. Either of the two should be fine right? TL;DR gcc-help is not an ideal place to discuss this. You can send your patch to gcc-patches to get a review, or leave a comment in the bugzilla for discussion. If you only change the text, it will be: t.c:1:1: warning: a function prototype must specify the argument types [-Wstrict-prototypes] 1 | static int f(); | ^~~~~~ To me it is even worse than what we have now: t.c:1:1: warning: function declaration isn't a prototype [-Wstrict-prototypes] 1 | static int f(); | ^~~~~~ -- Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University