Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!henry
From: henry@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Henry Mensch)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: Possible C Compiler Bug?
Message-ID: <689@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 10-Jun-86 12:14:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-tril.689
Posted: Tue Jun 10 12:14:03 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Jun-86 03:58:14 EDT
References: <6200004@wvlpdp>
Reply-To: henry@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Henry Mensch)
Organization: The People's Republic of Cambridge
Lines: 40

In article <6200004@wvlpdp> john@wvlpdp writes:
>
>This compiles:
>main()
>{
>	A lot of code here;
>	goto here;
>	More code here;
>here:
>	;
>}
>
>This will not:
>main()
>{
>	A lot of code here;
>	goto here;
>		
>
>here:
>}
>
>	Is this a compiler bug?

	This is *not* a compiler bug -- Kernighan & Rtichie states
that "Any statement may be preceded by label prefixes of the form 

	identifier:

which serve to declare the identifier as a label. . . ."  The example
that you show which does *not* compile does *not* have a statement
after the label, and the label is misplaced.  

	Your first example has a null statement after the label. This
works fine, since there is indeed a statement after the label.

-- 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Henry Mensch     |    Technical Writer     | MIT/Project Athena
henry@athena.mit.edu              ..!mit-eddie!mit-athena!henry