From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-14219-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 17903 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2003 19:17:57 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 17877 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2003 19:17:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO neon-gw.transmeta.com) (63.209.4.196)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 2003 19:17:57 -0000
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by neon-gw.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26712;
	Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:17:52 -0700
Received: from mailhost.transmeta.com(10.1.1.15) by neon-gw.transmeta.com via smap (V2.1)
	id xma026674; Tue, 10 Jun 03 12:17:43 -0700
Received: from casey.transmeta.com (casey.transmeta.com [10.10.25.22])
	by deepthought.transmeta.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5AJHlB12490;
	Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from dje@localhost) by casey.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.7.3) id MAA15356; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:17:47 -0700
From: Doug Evans <dje@transmeta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16102.11995.83824.275036@casey.transmeta.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 19:17:00 -0000
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, rth@redhat.com
Subject: int foo (); vs int foo (void);
In-Reply-To: <3EE62C3A.5000302@redhat.com>
References: <3EE62C3A.5000302@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00172.txt.bz2

Andrew Cagney writes:
 > Ok, so I knew there was a reason for prefering:
 > 
 > > static void
 > > foo (void)
 > > {
 > > }
 > 
 > over
 > 
 > > static void
 > > foo ()
 > > {
 > > }
 > 
 > other than that `the former is strict ISO C'.  -Wmissing-prototypes gets 
 > grumpy if it sees the second form.  I'd assume that the corresponding 
 > ARI check was added as a cheap -Wmissing-prototypes check.

Yep.

It's unfortunate that gcc doesn't treat the latter as an extension.
A whole mess o' code is going to get needlessly changed (and I'm
refering to far more than just gdb).  Blech!