[Bug c/48091] No warning when given function arguments mismatch earlier function definition which GCC assumes to be K&R, even with --std=c99 -pedantic

["eerott at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48091

Eero Tamminen <eerott at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|No warning when given       |No warning when given
                   |function arguments mismatch |function arguments mismatch
                   |earlier function definition |earlier function definition
                   |which GCC assumes to be K&R |which GCC assumes to be
                   |                            |K&R, even with --std=c99
                   |                            |-pedantic

--- Comment #4 from Eero Tamminen <eerott at gmail dot com> 2011-06-23 19:28:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Program:
> ----------
> int test(a, b)
>         int a;
>         int b;
> {
>         return a+b;
> }
> int main(void)
> {
>         return test("foo");
> }
> ----------

(In reply to comment #1)
> That's how K&R works.  The function definition isn't a prototype.

Right, including an ANSI-C prototype either for:
  int test(int a, int b);

or for:
  int test(const char *);

Would cause there to be a warning.  I would never have though somebody to mix
K&R & ANSI-C like that, but I just noticed that having K&R function
implementations in *.c files with ANSI-C prototypes in headers seems to be e.g.
how Glibc does things...


It still doesn't help with mistakes like "function() { ... }" for people who
have experience with other compilers than GCC.  GCC is only compiler with this
dangerous defaulting to K&R interpretation.