Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:00:15 +0100 | From | Jiri Slaby <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpatch.pl: thou shalt not use () or (...) in function declarations |
| |
On 03/22/2012 05:55 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 03/22/2012 05:49 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:22:33 +0100, Jiri Slaby said: >>> That explanation is not fully correct. C99 explicitly says >>> (6.7.5.3.14): An identifier list declares only the identifiers of >>> the parameters of the function. An empty list in a function >>> declarator that is part of a definition of that function >>> specifies that the function has no parameters. The empty list in >>> a function declarator that is not part of a definition of that >>> function specifies that no information about the number or types >>> of the parameters is supplied. >>> >>> So what you are trying to force here holds only for (forward) >>> declarations. Not for functions with definitions (bodies). Is >>> checkpatch capable to differ between those? >> >> The fact that 'int foo() { /*whatever*/ }' with an empty parameter >> list is *legal* doesn't mean that we can't collectively put our >> foot down and say "This is too ugly to live in our source tree".
And I pointed that out because I didn't want people to start converting such uses in batches now.
thanks, -- js suse labs
| |