NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/std/c/3304

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 3.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!rdsunx.crd.ge.com!bart!volpe
From: [e-mail] (Christopher R Volpe)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Standard conformance and GCC 2.3.3
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:00:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: volpe@bart (Christopher R Volpe)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development
Lines: 56
Nntp-Posting-Host: bart.crd.ge.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|> +In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Norman Diamond) writes:
|> +|> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> +|> >#9)  GCC fails to issue errors in cases where a static function is referenced
|> +|> >     but never defined, even when the -pedantic-errors option is used.
|> +|> >static void s (); int main () { s (); return 1; }
|> +|>
|> +|> Again I see no violation of a constraint.  Furthermore, if you returned
|> +
|> +Me neither, but...
|>
|> See ANSI section 3.7, constraints.

Opps. You're right. Thanks.

|>
|> +|> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> +|> >#20)  GCC incorrectly issues errors for the following standard-conformant
|> +|> >      ANSI C code when the -pedantic-errors option is used.
|> +|> >static enum E1 { red, green, blue};
|> +|> >static struct S1 { int member; };
|> +|> >static union U2 { int member; };
|> +|> >void foobar () {
|> +|> >    auto enum E2 { red, green, blue };
|> +|> >    auto struct S2 { int member; };
|> +|> >    auto union U2 { int member; };
|> +|> >}
|> +|>
|> +|> Spurious diagnostics are allowed, though now they return to the status of
|> +|> unfriendly and misleading.  What happened when you tried executing it?
|> +
|> +These diagnostics are prefectly friendly and very helpful. Since the
|> +declarations allocate no storage (there's no object being defined), a
|> +storage class specifier is useless and superfluous.
|>
|> I disagree violently with the assertion that the issuance of errors for
|> perfecly "standard conformant" code is "perfectly friendly and very helpful".
|> Anyone who says such a thing obviously does not port code for a living!

I disagree violently with the assertion that any errors one might make
would necessarily result in non-standard-conformant code. Just because
it's conformant doesn't mean it's intended. Anyone who says such a thing
obviously never writes original code for a living, or otherwise is a
complete programming God who has never made a mistake and never found
lint to be the least bit useful.

I would *never* write the above piece of code intentionally, no matter
how conformant it is, and I would appreciate some kind of warning that
I had obviously omitted some variable names in those declarations.

--
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
[e-mail]