Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!sco!seanf
From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: X3J11 Pleasanton meeting summary
Message-ID: <7997@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: 3 Oct 90 20:33:20 GMT
References: <13996@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1990Oct2.164709.23887@zoo.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@sco.COM
Reply-To: seanf (Sean Fagan)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 29


In article <1990Oct2.164709.23887@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>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 */
>Betcha there isn't a compiler on Earth that will accept that today.

You'd lose.  gcc will accept it.  pcc and msc, on the other hand, blow
chunks at it.

However, I agree with you.  It seems foolish to allow that declaration.
Is

	struct foo x[1024];
	int c;
	struct foo { unsigned char [32567]; };

supposed to work, as well?  What if it is part of a struct or union
definition?

-- 
-----------------+
Sean Eric Fagan  | "Never knock on Death's door:  ring the bell and 
seanf@sco.COM    |   run away!  Death really hates that!"
uunet!sco!seanf  |     -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor")
(408) 458-1422   | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.