From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <775b8d190610060900xc05821dpe729122bb0493062@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat,  7 Oct 2006 02:00:18 +1000
From: "Bruce Ellis" <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] C99 and you
In-Reply-To: <45578282b32b388fd2b85b062cbeefac@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <7fca3123c4179206ee5199a80f182378@terzarima.net>
	<45578282b32b388fd2b85b062cbeefac@quanstro.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c70de034-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

sorry, i misunderstood the absurd standard, again.

brucee

On 10/6/06, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> actually, the switch statement here is a red herring.  here's what kenc dislikes:
>
>        label:  int assignment = 0;
>
> so this will generate an error, too:
>
> void
> main(void)
> {
> begin:  int j;
>        j = 0;
>        if(j>1)
>                goto begin;
>        exits("");
> }
>
> gcc is also unable to parse this production.
>
> - erik
>