Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!nowhere!sking
From: sking@nowhere.uucp (steven king)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: ansi c output from cfront(s)
Message-ID: <9008191857.13779@nowhere.uucp>
Date: 19 Aug 90 18:57:44 GMT
Organization: nowhere
Lines: 45


in my earlier post about MSC choking on the output of cfront
(Guidelines || Intek) using the +a (ansi c) switch, I think I wasnt clear
about what MSC didnt like; protos generated by cfront of the form

	void __dt__3fooFv(struct foo * __0this, int );

cause MSC to complain "syntax error : ')' " for the line in question;
appearently it expecting a tag for the second arguement. Editing the output
of cfront to produce

	void __dt__3fooFv(struct foo * __0this, int free);

and MSC compiles it without a complaint. Note that if the body of the function
is defined, cfront produces output acceptable to MSC, ie:

class foo {
public:
   foo();
   ~foo();
};
foo::~foo()
{
}

results in

	void __dt__3fooFv (
	struct foo *__0this ,
	int __0__free )
	{ if (__0this )
	if (__0this )if (__0__free & 1)__dl__FPv ( (void *)__0this ) ;
	}

so the question remains, to whom do I complain to? Intek and Guidelines (AT&T)
or Microsoft?

--oh the version of cfront used is 2.0 and the version of MSC is 6.0

(I applogise for wasting so much bandwidth on for what to most must seem a
trivial matter)
-- 
NONE of the standard disclaimers apply	
===============================================================================
UUCP:					...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!nowhere!sking