Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #17336

Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice?

From James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice?
Date 2012-02-14 17:01 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <4F3AD9D1.1030207@verizon.net> (permalink)
References <jhcq3f$sch$1@news.albasani.net> <4f39ffba$0$18696$91cee783@newsreader03.highway.telekom.at> <0.0a779e9afa88a1fc008c.20120214131443GMT.87aa4l36bg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <bc49de91-a461-4bf6-9331-77a23bf60e03@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 02/14/2012 04:47 PM, Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> In C99 implicit declarations are not permitted.
> 
> They're no longer required, but if a C99+ implementation
> decides to support them anyway, no diagnostic is required
> for their use.

Its a constraint violation - 6.7.2p2: "At least one type specifier shall
be given in the declaration specifiers in each declaration,
and in the specifier-qualifier list in each struct declaration and type
name." Therefore a diagnostic is required.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? /dev/phaeton <blahbleh666@no_more_spam.hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 23:05 -0600
  Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? Johann Klammer <klammerj@NOSPAM.a1.net> - 2012-02-14 07:31 +0100
    Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-14 13:14 +0000
      Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2012-02-14 16:20 +0000
      Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? Peter Nilsson <airia@acay.com.au> - 2012-02-14 13:47 -0800
        Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-14 17:01 -0500
          Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-14 22:35 +0000
            Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-14 17:51 -0500
              Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-15 00:06 +0000
          Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? Peter Nilsson <airia@acay.com.au> - 2012-02-14 20:27 -0800
            Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-14 22:24 -0800
  Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-14 01:18 -0600
  Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-02-14 00:05 -0800
  Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-14 09:09 +0000
    Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? /dev/phaeton <blahbleh666@no_more_spam.hotmail.com> - 2012-02-14 23:51 -0600
      Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-15 06:36 +0000
      Re: Function Prototypes: Necessary or just good practice? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-15 08:31 -0500

csiph-web