Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!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: <3427@mcrware.UUCP>
Date: 17 Oct 90 16:25:45 GMT
References: <13996@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones)
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa
Lines: 20

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 */

Sorry to bring this one up again, but I have something more than handwaving
to bring to the matter this time. :-)

If this is the current interpretation, then it is not consistent with the
"Semantics" portion of section 3.5 (lines 30-31, p.70), which states

"If an identifier for an object is declared with no linkage, the type
for the object shall be complete by the end of its declarator, or by
the end of its init-declarator if it has an initializer."

So...does this reflect an official change in the standard?

	James Jones