Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:10452 comp.std.c:28
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!vector!rpp386!pigs!haugj
From: haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: static functions broken in non-Unix compilers?
Summary: Summary of responses ...
Message-ID: <138@pigs.UUCP>
Date: 27 May 88 17:24:34 GMT
References: <120@pigs.UUCP> <126@pigs.UUCP>
Followup-To: comp.std.c
Organization: Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers
Lines: 50


I earlier posted about some difficulty a client had had compiling a
collection of C code I had written for him.  He had informed me that
he had difficulty compiling the code, as he said, `On a number of
different compilers'.  It turns out the `number' was 1 and the
`different compilers' was the C compiler which is provided with
VM on a 9370.  However, other ANSI-like compilers should have similiar
troubles.

The declarations for the functions causing the trouble were as
follows:

struct	node	*stmt_expr (),
		*smpl_expr (),
		*r_mknode (),
		*st_exp1 (),
		.
		.
		.
		*ag_total ();

with the actual function definition being of the form

static	struct	node	*st_exp1 ()
{
	.
	.
	.
}

Many person wrote that this did not cause them trouble on their
particular compilers.  However, a few people with ``ANSI'' compilers
did mention some grief.  Doug Gwyn, I believe, wrote in a follow
up article, for those of you who missed it, that yes, you must
declare the function to have the same storage class as the actual
function definition itself has.  Thinking back (WAY BACK) I do
recall this ``feature'' being discussed as a way to inform the
compiler that the function linkage may be different for static
functions vs. global functions [ namely that certain segmented
machines may be able to generate `NEAR CALL's vs `FAR CALL's. ]

So in short, all declarations of a function must match the actual
form as the function definition itself.

- John.
-- 
 The Beach Bum                                 Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers
 UUCP: ...!killer!rpp386!jfh                          jfh@rpp386.uucp :SMAILERS

 "You are in a twisty little maze of UUCP connections, all alike" -- fortune