Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!lll-winken!gauss.llnl.gov!casey
From: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: X11.3 on alliant with fx/c
Keywords: alliant support X11 compilation
Message-ID: <36620@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 23 Oct 89 20:43:54 GMT
References: <125@euteal.ele.tue.nl> <36535@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: casey@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 19

| From: prl@iis.ethz.ch (Peter Lamb)
| 
| > From: casey@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
| > 
| > One item you listed as a C usage bug in X.V11R3, semicolons following
| > function definitions, is perfectly legal (though disgusting) C.  It forms
| > an empty C declaration.
| 
| [Excerpts from early ANSI C drafts and browsings through K&R showing that
| null declarations aren't legal in K&R C or ANSI C.]

  Ack, you're probably right.  I knew I shouldn't have mailed that off
before going into work to check out my K&R.  I just thought I remembered
seeing a syntactic path through the syntactic description that allowed a
null declaration and then I figured ``gcc -ansi -pedantic'' would object
if it wasn't legal C (it didn't complain).  Chalk it up to another case
of jumping without looking.  Please excuse the tangent.

Casey