Path: csiph.com!xmission!nnrp.xmission!.POSTED.shell.xmission.com!not-for-mail
From: nobody@example.org (Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Switching to C#
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:20:45 GMT
Organization: XMission http://xmission.com/
Message-ID: <5d05fa0f.3452768783@core>
References: <qdr3vq$c0e$1@dont-email.me> <OyiME.971$fv7.530@fx08.fr7> <qe04ln$a3u$1@dont-email.me> <5d03bb38.3305609877@core> <qe37jf$tie$1@news.albasani.net> <5d059fdf.3429680737@core> <lnlfy2ntvy.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
Injection-Info: news.xmission.com; posting-host="shell.xmission.com:2607:fa18:0:beef::4"; logging-data="30536"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@xmission.com"
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:144912 comp.lang.c++:66458

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 19:31:13 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
wrote:

>nobody@example.org (Scott) writes:
>[...]
>> C does allow implicit declarations. You can call a previously
>> undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
>> are the types the function's expecting. I think it's a bad idea, and
>> it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea. I think
>> any form of implicit typing is a bad idea.
>
>No, it doesn't.  Calling an undeclared function has been a constraint
>violation since C99 dropped the "implicit int" rule.

Apparently not a fatal one. gcc 7.4 with -std=c99 warns, but builds it
anyway.