Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: function prototype problem
Message-ID: <8889@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 14 Nov 88 21:24:37 GMT
References: <310@drd.UUCP> <1704@scolex>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Distribution: na
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 18

In article <1704@scolex> seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes:
-In article <310@drd.UUCP> mark@drd.UUCP () writes:
->char *rpeet  ( short, char );
->char *rpeet ( num, ch )
->    short num;
->    char ch;
-I, however, maintain what what ANSI says is that, if you declare a function
-using old-style declaration (as you did), then you do not expand the
-arguments unless a prototype is given; but if you use newstyle declarations
-(char *rpeet ( short num, char ch) {), everything is as if you had also
-given a prototype.

I don't have the draft Standard at hand right now, but I'm pretty sure
Stallman is right to have gcc diagnose this.  Old-style function syntax
requires widened arguments but the prototype indicates unwidened.  This
is clearly a type clash.  It is possible that the draft Standard really
says that a compiler has to straighten things out in cases like this
example, but I would find it surprising (and dangerous).