Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.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 09:07:33 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <503C6E35.3090905@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$GZ3.178925@tornado.fastwebnet.it> <503BD05A.9030804@loria.fr> <lnsjb8asei.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <k1gv4k$cdt$1@dont-email.me> <lnk3wj26sd.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <kZU_r.202688$GZ3.22168@tornado.fastwebnet.it>
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="12541"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19RZkTJt+qHz1HChA2bLXjQ+7xzFmROGCg="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
In-Reply-To: <kZU_r.202688$GZ3.22168@tornado.fastwebnet.it>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RwQUTC+mXUsRqUFKHVhi7e/g5nI=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:25194

Am 28.08.2012 03:16, schrieb Vincenzo Mercuri:
> Il 28/08/2012 02:34, Keith Thompson ha scritto:
> [..]
>> Removing `main` from the debate for a moment, clearly the following
>> function definition is valid:
>>
>>      void foo() { }
>>
>> But does this function definition:
>>
>>      void foo() {
>>          if (0) foo(42);
>>      }
>>
>> require a diagnostic?
>>
> 
> I agree with what you said. I believe that there is no way to answer to
> this question, unless the Standard explicitly says that, in such cases,
> "void foo() { }" also provides a prototype for `foo()'.

But it says so implicitly. Prototypes are defined semantically
(6.2.1p2), not through syntax: a declaration of a function that
declares the types of its parameters. "void foo() { }" perfectly fits
in here, it is a definition and it specifies the number and type of
its parameters, namely none.

Jens