Do typechecking and codegen for K&R-style function declarations
correctly. Not a regression, but made more obvious by my recent fix
which made function type compatibility checking a bit more strict.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@55339 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp b/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
index 066969c..ad83908 100644
--- a/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
+++ b/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
@@ -690,8 +690,7 @@
// Copy the parameter declarations from the declarator D to
// the function declaration NewFD, if they are available.
- if (D.getNumTypeObjects() > 0 &&
- D.getTypeObject(0).Fun.hasPrototype) {
+ if (D.getNumTypeObjects() > 0) {
DeclaratorChunk::FunctionTypeInfo &FTI = D.getTypeObject(0).Fun;
// Create Decl objects for each parameter, adding them to the
@@ -716,7 +715,7 @@
Diag(Param->getLocation(), diag::ext_param_typedef_of_void);
}
- } else {
+ } else if (FTI.NumArgs > 0 && FTI.ArgInfo[0].Param != 0) {
for (unsigned i = 0, e = FTI.NumArgs; i != e; ++i)
Params.push_back((ParmVarDecl *)FTI.ArgInfo[i].Param);
}
@@ -1540,11 +1539,6 @@
FTI.ArgInfo[i].Param = ActOnParamDeclarator(FnBodyScope, ParamD);
}
}
-
- // Since this is a function definition, act as though we have information
- // about the arguments.
- if (FTI.NumArgs)
- FTI.hasPrototype = true;
} else {
// FIXME: Diagnose arguments without names in C.
}