Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcrware!jejones
From: jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: X3J11 Pleasanton meeting summary
Keywords: X3J11 Pleasanton meeting C standard interpretations
Message-ID: <3206@mcrware.UUCP>
Date: 3 Oct 90 17:36:03 GMT
References: <13996@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones)
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa
Lines: 31

In article <13996@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@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 */

Gee.  This seems to me to be rather inconsistent with other constraints
placed on C that appear to have as their justification allowing straight-
forward one-pass compilation.  Would it really be permissible to have

	struct foo;

	woof()
	{
		struct foo	x;

		/* ... */
	}

	/* ...eventually, at the end of the source file... */

	struct foo {
		int	i;
	};

for example?  Can one refer to fields in incomplete structures as long
as they occur in a complete declaration that appears by translation
unit's end?

	James Jones