Xref: utzoo gnu.gcc.bug:2031 comp.std.c:2519
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!uci-ics!rfg
From: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.bug,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: function prototype syntax
Message-ID: <25EB0435.3408@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 27 Feb 90 22:50:30 GMT
References: <9002270016.AA02978@yamada-sun.UUCP>
Reply-To: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 33

In article <9002270016.AA02978@yamada-sun.UUCP> yamada-sun!eric@nosun.west.sun.com (Eric Hanchrow) writes:
>
>Here's an entire program which compiles just fine with gcc-1.37
>(Sparc, SunOS 4.0.c).
>	extern int fred(int a, int );
>I tried compiling the same program with Microsoft C 5.1, and it said
>unto me, quote,
>	junk3.c(1) : error C2059: syntax error : ','
>I promptly got on the phone to Microsoft to chew them out about this
>obvious ANSI non-compatibility.  The fella on the phone said, "No, the
>ANSI standard requires that you either name all the arguments in a
>function prototype, or none of them".  Therefore, he claimed, the
>error generaed by Microsoft was correct (although not very
>informative).
>
>Now, I don't have a copy of the Standard, but if the guy at Microsoft
>was right, then gcc should also complain when presented with this
>code.

I think that GCC is correct and that Microsoft is wrong.  I'm looking at
section 3.5.4.3 of the draft standard and I see no such restriction
stated there.  If there was such a restriction, it would belong in
3.5.4.3.

You had better call back that guy at Microsoft and insist that he cite
chapter and verse from the standard to back up his assertion.

I am cross posting this to comp.std.c where some *real* C standard guru's
may be willing to comment.

// Ron Guilmette (rfg@ics.uci.edu)
// C++ Entomologist
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.