Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucla-cs!uci-ics!rfg
From: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: g++ core dump from improper use of extern "C"
Message-ID: <25B0E7F7.6002@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 14 Jan 90 20:58:31 GMT
References: <1581@aber-cs.UUCP> <18157@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> <25AFE9B7.14113@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Reply-To: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ron Guilmette)
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 42

In article <25AFE9B7.14113@paris.ics.uci.edu> rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ron Guilmette) writes:
>In article <18157@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> mike@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Mike Haertel) writes:
>>
>>Just to be pedantic, this is not strictly true.  It is OK to
>>declare a pointer to an incomplete type, so this works *here*.
>>But consider the following counterexample:
>>
>>/*1*/	struct b { int x; };
>>/*2*/
>>/*3*/	void foo() {
>>/*4*/	    struct b;
>>/*5*/	    struct a { struct b *b; } *a;
>>/*6*/	    struct b { struct a *a; } *b;
>>/*7*/
>>/*8*/	    b = a->b;
>>/*9*/	}
>>
>>In this case, line 4 is necessary to make "struct b" an incomplete type.
>>Otherwise, the "struct b *b" in line 5 would refer to the "struct b"
>>declared on line 1...
>
>Buzzzzzzzt!  Sorry, no!  But thanks for playing our game.  Just for being
>such a good sport you win a free copy of our home game, complete with the
>new 2.0 Reference Manual.

OK, before you folks send me 8 zillion letters telling me what a dumbs***
I am for having posted this, let me just say that I know already!

Section 9.1 of the new 2.0 manual does indeed require the declaration of
struct b in the example above.

I guess that the booby prize (the 2.0 Ref. Man.) goes to me instead, together
with a set of spectacles to read it with!

>
>:-) :-) :-)

Well, at least I had to good sense to put in smiles so that nobody would
think that I was being hostile.  (No... not hostile... just stupid.  I trust
that stupidity is a forgivable sin in this particular newsgroup.)

// rfg