WG14 has elected to remove support for K&R C functions in C2x. The
feature was introduced into C89 already deprecated, so after this long
of a deprecation period, the committee has made an empty parameter list
mean the same thing in C as it means in C++: the function accepts no
arguments exactly as if the function were written with (void) as the
parameter list.
This patch implements WG14 N2841 No function declarators without
prototypes (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2841.htm)
and WG14 N2432 Remove support for function definitions with identifier
lists (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2432.pdf).
It also adds The -fno-knr-functions command line option to opt into
this behavior in other language modes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123955
This patch adds -Wno-strict-prototypes to all of the test cases that
use functions without prototypes, but not as the primary concern of the
test. e.g., attributes testing whether they can/cannot be applied to a
function without a prototype, etc.
This is done in preparation for enabling -Wstrict-prototypes by
default.
This change is intended as initial setup. The plan is to add
more semantic checks later. I plan to update the documentation
as more semantic checks are added (instead of documenting the
details up front). Most of the code closely mirrors that for
the Swift calling convention. Three places are marked as
[FIXME: swiftasynccc]; those will be addressed once the
corresponding convention is introduced in LLVM.
Reviewed By: rjmccall
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95561
A user reported an issue to me via email that Clang was accepting some
code that GCC was rejecting. After investigation, it turned out to be a
general problem of us failing to properly reject attributes written in
the type position in C when they don't apply to types. The root cause
was a terminology issue -- we sometimes use "CXX11Attr" to mean [[]] in
C++11 mode and sometimes [[]] in general -- and this came back to bite
us because in this particular case, it really meant [[]] in C++ mode.
I fixed the issue by introducing a new function
AttributeCommonInfo::isStandardAttributeSyntax() to represent [[]] in
either C or C++ mode.
This fix pointed out that we've had the issue in some of our existing
tests, which have all been corrected. This resolves
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50954.
GCC 10.1 introduced support for the [[]] style spelling of attributes in C
mode. Similar to how GCC supports __attribute__((foo)) as [[gnu::foo]] in
C++ mode, it now supports the same spelling in C mode as well. This patch
makes a change in Clang so that when you use the GCC attribute spelling,
the attribute is automatically available in all three spellings by default.
However, like Clang, GCC has some attributes it only recognizes in C++ mode
(specifically, abi_tag and init_priority), which this patch also honors.
Aaron Ballman