From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
        Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Enable -Wstrict-prototypes and -Wold-style-definition by default
In-reply-to: 
 <CAN55FZ1VDwJ-ZD092ChYf++huP+-S3Cg45tJ8jNH5wx2c4BHAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <aa73q1aT0A3/vke/@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <44885d54-0376-46b3-b574-59e0e3098580@eisentraut.org>
 <dfb1373e-258f-42b7-ac76-0f5858936dfa@eisentraut.org>
 <CAN55FZ1VDwJ-ZD092ChYf++huP+-S3Cg45tJ8jNH5wx2c4BHAg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 18 Mar 2026 18:50:20 +0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <784252.1773853383.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 13:03:03 -0400
Message-ID: <784253.1773853383@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/784253.1773853383%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com> writes:
> I got this warning while running headerscheck after this commit:

> ~/Desktop/projects/postgres/src/interfaces/ecpg/ecpglib/ecpglib_extern.h=
:221:40:
> warning: function declaration isn=E2=80=99t a prototype [-Wstrict-protot=
ypes]
>   221 | void            ecpg_init_sqlca(struct sqlca_t *sqlca)

Yeah, I see that too.  I believe the problem is that headerscheck
doesn't cause POSTGRES_ECPG_INTERNAL to become defined, so that
what the compiler is seeing is (from sqlca.h):

	#ifndef POSTGRES_ECPG_INTERNAL
	#define sqlca (*ECPGget_sqlca())
	#endif

and then

	void		ecpg_init_sqlca(struct sqlca_t *sqlca);

Kinda surprising that that's not a syntax error.  We could plausibly
fix this either by

(1) renaming ecpg_init_sqlca's parameter to something else;

(2) ensuring that POSTGRES_ECPG_INTERNAL is defined.  I'd be inclined
to make ecpglib_extern.h do that rather than expecting headerscheck
to know about it.

Neither of these options are beautiful, but perhaps #1 is slightly
less ugly.  Any preferences?

			regards, tom lane