Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Reason for segmentation violation Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:13:08 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 23 Message-ID: <87eglghpm3.fsf@kst-u.example.com> References: <869bae8d-e318-4e1c-865b-3c5890304279@googlegroups.com> <79394a6c-fcf7-4f28-a8f5-22be18003741@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9be37d943435275679235b07c7947eef"; logging-data="12335"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mtrikdtNqDnHWTpMxindb" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:jUm7otR/w73GEfNzO4W/pG/L2DY= sha1:/YOMtM+eWKG91akkFQmyEPYQdpY= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:63220 David Kleinecke writes: [...] > The C90 standard also allows for the old way of function definition > int foo(a) int a; {...} > which I assume disappears in later standards. No, old-style function definitions and declaration are still fully supported (but "obsolescent") in the C99 and C11 standards. I personally hope that they're finally removed from the next standard (compilers would still be able to support them in a non-conforming mode to cater to old code), but I'm not holding my breath. We frequently discuss the more current editions of the C standard here. It might be worth your while to download the drafts so you can refer to them. [...] -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"