Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bu-cs!purdue!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: static functions broken in non-Unix compilers?
Message-ID: <7951@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 21 May 88 15:06:30 GMT
References: <120@pigs.UUCP> <126@pigs.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <126@pigs.UUCP> haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>Is this some new feature of ANSI C?  Does the declaration have to be
>of the same form, including storage class???

Existing compilers were not consistent in their interpretation of linkage
rules.  The correct way (old and new) to forward-reference a static
function is:
	static int func2();
	func1() { /* use func2 here */ }
	static int func2() { }