From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:02:12 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <212785519fea93fb108b892a64f623ce@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOw7k5jFVSuSyiv2rwdrH2VnNLSs3Bz=XWfpHEDjSbppJ0ggrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <33b72a69832f3b5442b659b76e41a8a7@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<CAE9W7-j4vNNhS5bVd=o4ciL3Pt+Bwg+e6m54Aa=wFTXG+rJEsg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOw7k5jFVSuSyiv2rwdrH2VnNLSs3Bz=XWfpHEDjSbppJ0ggrw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] c compiler bug
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 192e2fe4-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> No, the compiler is simply applying scope rules.  Without that inner
> declaration explicitly overriding the outer declaration--whether
> static or extern is used-- it will not compile (eg, if you put "static
> void fn(Outer*);" or "extern void fn(Outer*);" and remove static from
> fn in the file scope).

since nested functions are not allowed, applying nested scope seems
a bit odd.  anyway, ...

if the declaration were in the same place but the referenced
function were in another file, the -T would have prevented the
link.  my question is, why doesn't the c compiler internally
apply the same rule?

- erik