Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!metro!dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!ditsydh.syd.dit.CSIRO.AU!evans
From: evans@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (Bruce.Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: bug in C68
Message-ID: <1991May17.144638.843@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU>
Date: 17 May 91 14:46:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: syd.1991May17.144638.843
References: <53799@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Organization: CSIRO Division of Info Tech, Sydney, Australia
Lines: 20

In article <53799@nigel.ee.udel.edu> breure%ITIHP1.TNO.NL@pucc.princeton.edu (Frank Breure) writes:
>
>I discovered a bug in the parser of C68, in a function definition
>you don't have to use comma's to separate the parameters, thus
>        main(argc argv)         /* no comma between argc and argv !! */
>        int argc;
>        char *argv[];
>is accepted!

It's amusing that the released version of bcc has the same bug. This causes
unamusing bugs in conjunction with another bug that allows type declarators
in bad places. bcc does not support new-style function definitions, yet it
accepts:

	int foo(int bug) { return bug; }

The function is interpreted as having 2 parameters 'int' and 'bug'. 'bug' is
given the wrong stack slot (and 'int = 1;' works inside the function :-().
-- 
Bruce Evans		evans@syd.dit.csiro.au