Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:19:52 -0400 | From | Nick Bowler <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpatch.pl: thou shalt not use () or (...) in function declarations |
| |
On 2012-03-22 13:17 -0400, Nick Bowler wrote: > On 2012-03-22 17:22 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > On 03/22/2012 04:27 PM, Phil Carmody wrote: > [...] > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > index a3b9782..3993011 100755 > > > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > @@ -1881,6 +1881,10 @@ sub process { > > > substr($ctx, 0, $name_len + 1, ''); > > > $ctx =~ s/\)[^\)]*$//; > > > > > > + if ($ctx =~ /^\s*(?:\.\.\.)?\s*$/) { > > > + # HPA explains why: http://lwn.net/Articles/487493/ > > > + ERROR("(...) and () are not sufficiently informative function declarations\n$hereline"); > > > + } > > > > 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. > > Nevertheless, an empty identifier list in a declaration is still not the ^^^^^^^^^^^ That should obviously have said "definition". Sigh.
> same as a parameter type list with (void). In particular, the empty > identifier list *is not a prototype declaration for the function*. That > means that arguments passed to the function are not subject to the usual > checks/conversions implied by a prototype. > > Consider: > > int foo() > { > return 0; > } > > int main(void) > { > return foo(1, 2, 3, 4, 5); /* this is syntactically OK; undefined > behaviour at runtime. */ > } > > GCC will not normally warn about the above (unless you pass > -Wold-style-definition) which warns for all function definitions that > lack a prototype. On the other hand, changing it to int foo(void) > provides the required prototype for the arguments to be checked, and the > above becomes a proper error. > > > 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? > > For the above reasons, non-prototype declarations of any sort should be > avoided. No need for checkpatch to distinguish between whether or not > there's a function body. > > Cheers, -- Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)
| |