From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri,  9 Feb 2007 18:09:48 +0800
From: Lee Duhem <lee.duhem@gmail.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] 8c's feature or bug?
Message-ID: <20070209100948.GA4716@debian>
References: <20070208180145.GA9556@debian>
	<303879102ad156602837e8affd4c74f0@terzarima.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <303879102ad156602837e8affd4c74f0@terzarima.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0f86e536-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:48:48PM +0000, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> > I give prototypes of foo and foo1 before use and define them, maybe 8c
> > just ignore these prototypes when it see the definitions.
> 
> the prototypes are fine, but that one doesn't agree with the actual definition
> because the rules require the old style declaration
> 	void f(b)
> 	char b;
> 	{}
> to be treated as if it were
> 	void f(b)
> 	int b;
> 	{}
> whereas
> 	void f(char b)
> 	{}
> would be compatible with a prototype
> 	void f(char);
> 
> the diagnostic appears because it doesn't ignore the prototype
> (if it ignored it, all would be fine) but is obliged to check it against the
> actual definition which, according to the historical rules for that style of declaration,
> does not match.
> 
    I see now, thank you.

> if you find that all a little confusing, that's all the more reason to avoid the old style completely!
> 
> for old code that i control, i invariably take the opportunity to update it.

    I can't control these codes.

> 8c -w ... sometimes finds other problems in old code.
> 

    Yes, -w is very helpful.

Lee