X3J11 Pleasanton meeting summary
Sean Fagan
seanf at sco.COM
Thu Oct 4 06:33:20 AEST 1990
In article <1990Oct2.164709.23887 at zoo.toronto.edu> henry at zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <13996 at smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn at smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>> struct foo x;
>> struct foo { int i; };
>> /* the above is strictly conforming; incomplete-type objects can
>> be defined, so long as by the end of the translation unit the
>> type becomes complete so that storage can then be allocated */
>Betcha there isn't a compiler on Earth that will accept that today.
You'd lose. gcc will accept it. pcc and msc, on the other hand, blow
chunks at it.
However, I agree with you. It seems foolish to allow that declaration.
Is
struct foo x[1024];
int c;
struct foo { unsigned char [32567]; };
supposed to work, as well? What if it is part of a struct or union
definition?
--
-----------------+
Sean Eric Fagan | "Never knock on Death's door: ring the bell and
seanf at sco.COM | run away! Death really hates that!"
uunet!sco!seanf | -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor")
(408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
More information about the Comp.std.c
mailing list