Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!news
From: scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: lint (was: Funny mistake)
Message-ID: <1991Mar28.084403.29369@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 91 08:44:03 GMT
References: <1991Mar23.043408.5260@athena.mit.edu> <1991Mar24.165719.26908@druid.uucp> <c48H01l04bKM00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Reply-To: scs@adam.mit.edu
Organization: Thermal Technologies, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 18

In article <c48H01l04bKM00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> lamont@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Duane Richard LaMont) writes:
>In article <1991Mar24.165719.26908@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
>>I simply make sure that within a file a function is not used until it
>>has been defined.  This in effect makes it a prototype for itself.
>
>I thought this was a good idea too, but it didn't work for me on the
>first prototyping compiler I ever used (SCO XENIX, forget the version
>number).  It behaved as if I had declared the function without
>prototyping it (i.e. the return type was known, but not the argument
>count and types).
>
>Are prototyping compilers supposed to treat a function as prototyped
>following that function's definition?

Yes.

                                            Steve Summit
                                            scs@adam.mit.edu