Now we don't warn on this code:
void __stdcall f(void);
void __stdcall f();
My previous commit regressed this functionality because I didn't update
the relevant test case which used a definition.
llvm-svn: 221188
We already have a warning on the call sites of code like this:
void f() { }
void g() { f(1, 2, 3); }
t.c:2:21: warning: too many arguments in call to 'f'
We can limit ourselves to diagnosing unprototyped forward declarations
of f to cut down on noise.
llvm-svn: 221184
Wire it through everywhere we have support for fastcall, essentially.
This allows us to parse the MSVC "14" CTP headers, but we will
miscompile them because LLVM doesn't support __vectorcall yet.
Reviewed By: Aaron Ballman
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5808
llvm-svn: 220573
Fixes PR21027. The MIDL compiler produces code that does this.
If we wanted to improve the warning, I think we could do this:
void __stdcall f(); // Don't warn without -Wstrict-prototypes.
void g() {
f(); // Might warn, the user probably meant for f to take no args.
f(1, 2, 3); // Warn, we have no idea what args f takes.
f(1); // Error, this is insane, one of these calls is broken.
}
Reviewers: thakis
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5481
llvm-svn: 218394
According to lore, we used to verifier-fail on:
void __thiscall f();
int main() { f(1); }
So that's fixed now. System headers use prototype-less __stdcall functions,
so make that a warning that's DefaultError -- then it fires on regular code
but is suppressed in system headers.
Since it's used in system headers, we have codegen tests for this; massage
them slightly so that they still compile.
llvm-svn: 218166
Reid Kleckner