Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:01:45 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <503C6CD9.3050509@loria.fr>
References: <5ae847c6-461f-4243-86bb-5712b158b022@googlegroups.com> <RicZr.7335$M_7.5679@fx06.am4> <lnobm2h8sv.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <k13mb4$qih$1@speranza.aioe.org> <7IqdnYpQqOi476vNnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@giganews.com> <36a33495-6dbd-49bc-a36e-59dd1f479902@k3g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> <d27d128b-d721-4adc-b666-3a80bd63f50c@googlegroups.com> <lnr4qug4qp.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <12c3eb3a-f1a9-493b-a58b-c572729ec037@googlegroups.com> <lnharpc74m.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <b0e36e19-d5e5-43a5-b148-3dd291f1095d@googlegroups.com> <k1fp15$djg$1@dont-email.me> <371dad4b-a842-42d9-9716-98b48f9a8335@googlegroups.com> <503B9FDD.3040305@verizon.net> <LSN_r.202621$GZ3.128853@tornado.fastwebnet.it> <503BB07E.8070109@verizon.net> <8aQ_r.202661$GZ3.178925@tornado.fastwebnet.it> <503BD05A.9030804@loria.fr> <lnsjb8asei.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <503BFAD7.30202@loria.fr> <ln8vczc34h.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="2590e4fa64e7931a8f955de6703c052f"; logging-data="11135"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18h3v65jl1wMoZ8B+42qCOjMWm2l91ht5M="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
In-Reply-To: <ln8vczc34h.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T4LxSOsUIiVDpFiq8V9AL9rRBsw=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:25193

Am 28.08.2012 01:43, schrieb Keith Thompson:
> Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> writes:
> And if `void foo() { }` does provide a prototype, then *that*
> needs to be made clearer; there are a lot of compilers that fail
> to warn about calls like `foo(42)`.

Please re-read what I have stated in my previous post. The definition
of the term function prototype is not given syntactically but
semantically: a declaration of a function that declares the types of
its parameters, that's it.

void foo() { }

perfectly fits this definition, so this declaration includes a
prototype.

The only nitpick that you could find here is the use of "specifies"
versus "declares", so one could want to do a corrigendum

6.7.6.3p14: "An empty list in a function declarator that is part of a
 definition of that function *declares* that the function has no
 parameters."

But you'd have to do a lot of hairsplitting to actually see the
difference between a "declaration that specifies something" and a
"declaration that declares something".

Jens