Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #94324

Re: To include or not to include

From Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: To include or not to include
Date 2016-09-30 20:27 +0100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <87wpht6vcy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References (11 earlier) <ns9m0h$fij$1@dont-email.me> <nsbju0$4vl$1@dont-email.me> <nscea2$3fk$1@dont-email.me> <8737klcxma.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nsmbtk$lr$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> writes:
<snip>
> I /was/ thinking that external linkage meant that the identical names
> would refer to the same object or function across translation
> units. And that internal linkage meant the same within a translation
> unit. If I read you correctly you are saying that that is wrong but I
> don't understand why.
>
> From n1570:
>
> "In the set of translation units and libraries that constitutes an
> entire program, each declaration of a particular identifier with
> external linkage denotes the same object or function."

Yup.  Note that it does not say each *definition* denotes the same
object -- the linkage is a property of names, not objects.

The wording is not ideal.  It's easy to read the part you quote as
suggesting the definitions be merged, but if that were the case there
would be no need for the prohibition on multiple definitions (6.9 p5).

> At file scope:
>
>   file1.c
>     int x;
>     int x;
>
>   file2.c
>     int x;
>     int x;
>
> I thought that that would result in one variable called x for the
> entire program.

All of these are both declarations *and* definitions.  When you write

  extern int x;

it is *only* a declaration.  This is how you are supposed get x "here"
to refer to the same "x" as "x" in some other translation unit.

gcc (along with many other compilers) only merges definitions when they
are tentative definitions (as above) in all but one translation unit.
Try to link two or more TUs with explicit definitions and you get an
error.  tcc, on the other hand, rejects any hint of multiple definition
as in your example.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

To include or not to include James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 10:45 +0100
  Re: To include or not to include David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-23 12:43 +0200
    Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-23 12:17 +0100
      Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-23 13:32 +0100
        Re: To include or not to include David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-23 14:57 +0200
        Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-24 20:34 +0100
          Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-24 23:55 +0100
            Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-25 01:43 +0100
              Re: To include or not to include Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-25 14:38 +1300
              Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-25 11:42 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-25 11:58 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 14:06 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-25 15:15 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-09-25 23:33 +0800
                Re: To include or not to include Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-09-25 10:04 -0600
                Re: To include or not to include Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-09-26 00:21 +0800
                Re: To include or not to include "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-09-25 13:17 -0400
                Re: To include or not to include James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 00:18 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-26 17:55 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-26 20:07 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-26 12:13 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 01:25 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-26 18:05 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-27 14:27 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-27 14:49 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-27 15:15 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-27 07:42 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-27 09:30 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-27 10:06 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-27 08:12 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-28 10:46 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-27 17:55 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-27 10:19 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-27 11:42 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-27 19:57 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-27 12:38 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-27 21:00 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-28 01:50 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-28 10:55 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-27 13:33 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-09-28 19:13 +0000
                Re: To include or not to include supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-27 12:38 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 20:57 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-27 07:25 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-28 00:28 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-30 07:53 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-30 16:06 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-27 13:53 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 19:46 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-30 20:27 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-09-25 23:27 +0800
                Re: To include or not to include Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-25 11:38 -0400
                Re: To include or not to include Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-09-25 23:40 +0800
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-25 15:06 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-25 11:49 -0400
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-25 18:05 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-25 16:42 -0400
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-25 21:53 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-25 17:57 -0400
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-25 21:20 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-25 21:49 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-26 00:40 +0100
      Re: To include or not to include David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-23 14:56 +0200
  Re: To include or not to include Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-23 13:31 +0100
    Re: To include or not to include James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 13:52 +0100
      Re: To include or not to include Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-23 14:35 +0100
    Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-23 18:55 +0100
      Re: To include or not to include Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-23 20:33 +0100
  Re: To include or not to include Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-09-23 08:22 -0600
  Re: To include or not to include Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-09-23 11:37 -0400

csiph-web