Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!mcnc!ece-csc!jnh
From: jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: function prototype problem
Message-ID: <3839@ece-csc.UUCP>
Date: 15 Nov 88 13:59:28 GMT
References: <310@drd.UUCP> <1704@scolex> <8889@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall)
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Lines: 26

In article <8889@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
 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).

Not only does VAX (VMS) C diagnose this, it prohibits it.
-- 
v   v sssss|| joseph hall                      || 201-1D Hampton Lee Court
 v v s   s || jnh@ece-csc.ncsu.edu (Internet)  || Cary, NC  27511
  v   sss  || the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my
-----------|| employer, north carolina state university . . . . . . . . . . .