Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga.programmer:602 comp.std.c:4249
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!purdue!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: ANSI prototypes, the right choice...
Message-ID: <15089@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 5 Feb 91 20:16:00 GMT
References: <7708@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 16

In article <7708@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>	int foo(int a, int b);
>This is *not* compatible with a function declared:
>	int foo(a, b)
>	int a, b;
>	{
>	}
>While some compilers will accept this declaration while this prototype is
>in scope, it is not portable and should at least generate a warning.

No, this is perfectly okay.  If Lattice C has a problem with it, it is a
bug in Lattice C.

There ARE function interfaces where the "old style" definition would not
be compatible with a prototype using the same types, but only when default
argument promotions change the type, which is not the case for int.