Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: How to find the problem in the object file Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 13:54:22 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <23ab01a2-5220-42cb-80b2-20a2b4a35d5c@googlegroups.com> <2beebc58-3f8f-46c6-bd10-e2ec3cf87906@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d491f6c4f21643507896fe13668be1ca"; logging-data="22703"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188oclOlAEJHM7Vsa94TpPl" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:tpiJ8+CPUadq4qnToMMiOZK7V4k= sha1:JLDZoAhyDlV8BuHvyzmTt6Qohvc= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:103247 supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:13:49 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote: >> In C99, the committee removed implicit int from the language, and it >> hadn't even been marked as obsolescent. I agree with that decision, >> and similar reasons apply to non-prototype function declarations >> and definitions. Removing them would make C a better language. [...] > By contrast, some implementations define useful behaviors for non-prototyped > functions beyond anything the C Standard requires, and regarding declarations > without argument lists as a constraint violation would break such code *in > a way that could be difficult to fix*. Examples? [...] -- 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"