Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!charyb!dan
From: dan@kfw.COM (Dan Mick)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Prototypes for macros?
Message-ID: <1990May4.033226.630@kfw.COM>
Date: 4 May 90 03:32:26 GMT
References: <1990May3.202403.10140@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Reply-To: dan@kfw.com (Dan Mick)
Distribution: comp
Organization: KFW Corporation, Newbury Park, CA
Lines: 22

In article <1990May3.202403.10140@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> gleeper@tybalt.caltech.edu (Evan Manning) writes:
>I ran into an interesting situation yesterday playing with my brand
>new Turbo C 2.0.  I was trying to use it with all warnings and errors
>enabled, as I'd heard it claimed that this obviated all need for lint
>(At my previous job I got quite attached to PC-Lint from Gimpel but now
>it's my money so I thought I'd at least give Turbo a chance.)
>
>The problem emerged when I tried to use some functions (randomize &
>random) which are defined as macros in the headers.  TC gave me a
>'no prototype in scope' warning and then some other error message I
>don't recall when I disabled the prototype warning.  All problems
>vanished when I slavishly copied the definitions of the macros from
>the header.
>
>Is it a bug?  Should macros have prototypes too?  Will I have to worry
>about putchar et al?

Erm...if you had included the header, there wouldn't have been a warning,
since, after it was preprocessed, there would be no "function" randomize()
or random() to complain about.

#include <stdlib.h>