Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpatch.pl: thou shalt not use () or (...) infunction declarations

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 03/22/2012 09:22 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> 
> 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. The empty list in a function declarator that is not part of
> a definition of that function specifies that no information about the
> number or types of the parameters is supplied.
> 
> 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?
> 

We shouldn't use it anyway.  gcc might take it that way in C99 mode, but
it's unclear if it does it in the default mode, and having declarators
and definitions be different is just asking for trouble.

	-hpa

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/