From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Tree-walker callbacks vs -Wdeprecated-non-prototype
In-reply-to: <CA+hUKGKpHPDTv67Y+s6yiC8KH5OXeDg6a-twWo_xznKTcG0kSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+hUKGKpHPDTv67Y+s6yiC8KH5OXeDg6a-twWo_xznKTcG0kSA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 02 May 2022 11:41:20 +1200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1725173.1651449765.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 20:02:45 -0400
Message-ID: <1725174.1651449765@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1725174.1651449765%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> As visible on seawasp (and noticed here in passing, while hacking on
> the opaque pointer changes for bleeding edge LLVM), Clang 15 now warns
> by default about our use of tree walkers functions with no function
> prototype, because the next revision of C (C23?) will apparently be
> harmonising with C++ in interpreting f() to mean f(void), not
> f(anything goes).

Ugh.  I wonder if we can get away with declaring the walker arguments
as something like "bool (*walker) (Node *, void *)" without having
to change all the actual walkers to be exactly that signature.
Having to insert casts in the walkers would be a major pain-in-the-butt.

			regards, tom lane