Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga.programmer:587 comp.std.c:4242
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!maytag!csg.uwaterloo.ca!giguere
From: giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: ANSI prototypes, the right choice...
Message-ID: <1991Feb5.155953.26790@maytag.waterloo.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 91 15:59:53 GMT
Sender: daemon@maytag.waterloo.edu (Admin)
Organization: Computer Systems Group, University of Waterloo
Lines: 50

In article <7708@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>For all you Lattice-C programmers, I have a little hint for writing more
>portable programs:
>
>	int foo(int a, int b);
>
>This is *not* compatible with a function declared:
>
>	int foo(a, b)
>	int a, b;
>	{
>		...
>	}

Strictly speaking, this is not true.  What you are describing must be
a Lattice-specific warning.  Problems WOULD arise if you had the
following declarations:

    int foo( char a, char b );

    int foo( a, b )
      char a, b;
      {
        ...
      }

The prototype won't agree because the "char a, b" in the second declaration
will get promoted to "int a, b" using the old-style default promotion rules.
(I.e., char & short --> int, float --> double). 

If you're not going to be using prototypes all the time, then you should
make sure that any functions you declare in the new style, such as:

	int fubar( char a, float b, int c )
      {
      }

should actually look like:

	int fubar( int a, double b, int c )
      {
      }

If you take a look at the ANSI standard library you'll see they made all
the library functions look like this so that lack of prototypes won't
bite you...

--
Eric Giguere                                       giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA
           Quoth the raven: "Eat my shorts!" --- Poe & Groening