C89 had a questionable feature where the compiler would implicitly
declare a function that the user called but was never previously
declared. The resulting function would be globally declared as
extern int func(); -- a function without a prototype which accepts zero
or more arguments.
C99 removed support for this questionable feature due to severe
security concerns. However, there was no deprecation period; C89 had
the feature, C99 didn't. So Clang (and GCC) both supported the
functionality as an extension in C99 and later modes.
C2x no longer supports that function signature as it now requires all
functions to have a prototype, and given the known security issues with
the feature, continuing to support it as an extension is not tenable.
This patch changes the diagnostic behavior for the
-Wimplicit-function-declaration warning group depending on the language
mode in effect. We continue to warn by default in C89 mode (due to the
feature being dangerous to use). However, because this feature will not
be supported in C2x mode, we've diagnosed it as being invalid for so
long, the security concerns with the feature, and the trivial
workaround for users (declare the function), we now default the
extension warning to an error in C99-C17 mode. This still gives users
an easy workaround if they are extensively using the extension in those
modes (they can disable the warning or use -Wno-error to downgrade the
error), but the new diagnostic makes it more clear that this feature is
not supported and should be avoided. In C2x mode, we no longer allow an
implicit function to be defined and treat the situation the same as any
other lookup failure.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122983
A significant number of our tests in C accidentally use functions
without prototypes. This patch converts the function signatures to have
a prototype for the situations where the test is not specific to K&R C
declarations. e.g.,
void func();
becomes
void func(void);
This is the second batch of tests being updated (there are a significant
number of other tests left to be updated).
Summary: We need x86-64-specific builtins if we want to implement some of the MS intrinsics - winnt.h contains definitions of some functions for i386, but not for x86-64 (for example _InterlockedOr64), which means that we cannot treat them as builtins for both i386 and x86-64, because then we have definitions of builtin functions in winnt.h on i386.
Reviewers: thakis, majnemer, hans, rnk
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24598
llvm-svn: 283264
Aaron Ballman