Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: To include or not to include |
| Date | 2016-09-27 01:25 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <nscea2$3fk$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <ns8akc$o3j$1@dont-email.me> <ns8i3i$fks$1@dont-email.me> <ns8m5r$sqi$1@dont-email.me> <ns9m0h$fij$1@dont-email.me> <nsbju0$4vl$1@dont-email.me> |
On 26/09/2016 17:55, BartC wrote:
> On 26/09/2016 00:18, James Harris wrote:
>> On 25/09/2016 15:15, BartC wrote:
>
>>> So it seems superfluous. Unless, for some bizarre reason, you want to
>>> actually declare a file-scope name inside a function.
>>
>> IIRC this goes back to support for single pass. Consider this code:
>>
>> int x = 1;
>> int f(void) {
>> return x;
>> }
>>
>> When the compiler gets to see x in the function it knows its type.
>
> Presumably single passes are still used because C still has trouble with
> references to functions and variables that occur later on. (Or more
> likely, it has to maintain that behaviour even though forward
> declaration requirements could easily be relaxed.)
I think what you wrote in parens is the right interpretation. This is
about de jure not de facto!
>>> And it doesn't really explain however why 'extern' needs to be used for
>>> names of file-scope objects and functions that are shared between
>>> modules.
>>
>> From memory I think this is a subtle difference between declarations
>> (i.e. setting type information) and definitions (reserving storage).
>> Consider at file scope
>>
>> int x;
>>
>> Even though that does not assign a value, IIRC the compiler might treat
>> it as a definition (rules as to when are fiddly). But compare that with
>>
>> extern int x;
>>
>> The compiler will always see that as a declaration (again, with very
>> fiddly rules) and not a definition.
>
> All C compilers I've tried have no problem with:
>
> int x;
> int x;
> int x;
> int x;
> int x;
>
> within the same module, provided only one is initialised.
>
> Even when some of these are in other modules: the linker sees multiple
> instances and creates only one. EXCEPT when I use Tiny C, then it will
> report multiple definitions of x. That can be fixed by using extern in
> all either modules except one or even when extern is used everywhere.
>
> I don't know if that's a problem with Tiny C, or if it's all the other
> compilers that are being lax.
I've been reading the standard's /linkage/ section again. It seems to be
saying that certain identifiers with the same name are merged into one
(if you like, "linked" together):
Identifiers with external linkage are merged into one across all the
translation units that make up a program.
Identifiers with internal linkage are merged into one within a single
translation unit.
And identifiers with no linkage are not merged. Each one refers to a
separate entity.
Your "int x" declarations, above, will be external if they are declared
outside of any function so I think it's correct that they all be merged
into one.
>> Oversimplification: Maybe extern declares without reserving storage,
>> even at file scope.
>
> But as I said, you can use only extern, and it will still reserve storage.
What I wrote could still be correct, i.e. if the linker reserves the
storage rather than the compiler doing so.
--
James Harris
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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