Re: violating function pointer signature

Segher Boessenkool
2020-11-18T19:05:26Z

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 07:31:50PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Segher Boessenkool:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:17:30PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> I could change the stub from (void) to () if that would be better.
> >
> > Don't? In a function definition they mean exactly the same thing (and
> > the kernel uses (void) everywhere else, which many people find clearer).
>
> And I think () functions expected a caller-provided parameter save
> area on powerpc64le, while (void) functions do not.

Like I said (but you cut off, didn't realise it matters I guess):

> > In a function declaration that is not part of a definition it means no
> > information about the arguments is specified, a quite different thing.

Since the caller does not know if the callee will need a save area, it
has to assume it does. Similar is true for many ABIs.

> It does not
> matter for an empty function, but GCC prefers to use the parameter
> save area instead of setting up a stack frame if it is present. So
> you get stack corruption if you call a () function as a (void)
> function. (The other way round is fine.)

If you have no prototype for a function, you have to assume worst case,
yes. Calling things "a () function" can mean two things (a declaration
that is or isn't a definition, two very different things), so it helps
to be explicit about it.

Just use (void) and do not worry :-)

Segher