linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpatch.pl: thou shalt not use () or (...) in function declarations

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:49:03 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:	Phil Carmody <ext-phil.2.carmody@...ia.com>, apw@...onical.com,
	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpatch.pl: thou shalt not use () or (...) in function declarations

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:22:33 +0100, Jiri Slaby said:
> 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?

The fact that 'int foo() { /*whatever*/ }' with an empty parameter list
is *legal* doesn't mean that we can't collectively put our foot down and
say "This is too ugly to live in our source tree".

Is there any *legitimate* use of an empty parameter list in the kernel tree?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped