[Rd] Strict-prototypes definitions in R includes

[Laurent Gautier]

Thanks the answer.

Would submitted patches with strict post-K&R prototypes definition,
for the "void" cases and for the includes likely to be used by writers of
R extensions, be accepted ?


Laurent




2008/1/27, Prof Brian Ripley <ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk>:
> I think the answer is 'it depends'.
>
> - such prototypes are not required by C99.
> - using (void) is part of some authors' style and not of others. For the
>    latter, this is not an 'oversight' but an uglification.
> - in some cases the omission is deliberate as the function is used for
>    variable sets of arguments (e.g, in GraphicsDevice.h).
> - in others the omission is because it seemed safer to leave the
>    prototype out than to get it wrong (when passing functions, for
>    example).
> - some code is taken from other projects and still has K&R style
>    declarations.
>
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Laurent Gautier wrote:
>
> >  Dear list,
> >
> >  Whenever the flag "-Wstrict-prototypes" is set in gcc, compiling code that
> > includes headers in lib/R/include generates often warnings
> > (example with R-2.6.1:
> > Rinternals.h:560: warning: function declaration isn't a prototype
> > ).
> >
> >  All such warnings I looked at were about functions with empty
> > signatures declared
> > as "bar foo();" rather than "bar foo(void);". Is there a reason, or is
> > this just an oversight in the include files ?
>
> It seems you were rather selective in your looking.
>
> >
> >  Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Laurent
>
> --
> Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk
> Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
> University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
> 1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272866 (PA)
> Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595
>