[PATCH/RFC] enable -Wstrict-prototypes (PR 82922)

[Joseph Myers]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:

> Sure.  I think we could easily exempt most of the tests from
> diagnosing without compromising the efficacy of the warning
> by silently accepting definitions of () functions that take no
> arguments (and diagnosing calls to them that pass some).  What
> I think is important to preserve is diagnosing () declarations.

My general rule of thumb here is: if the function definitions / 
declarations / calls in question would be valid C++, with () interpreted 
as no arguments, warning by default is questionable.  If you have an 
old-style definition with arguments and no prior prototype, or a () 
declaration followed by a call or definition with arguments, warning by 
default is more reasonable.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com