This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

c/8506: 3.3 (1104) disallowing omission of parameters in fn def


>Number:         8506
>Category:       c
>Synopsis:       3.3 (1104) disallowing omission of parameters in fn def
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          rejects-legal
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Fri Nov 08 09:56:04 PST 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Jeff Donner
>Release:        gcc version 3.3 20021104 (experimental)
>Organization:
>Environment:
cygwin, Win2K
>Description:
gcc now makes it an error to omit parameter names, eg

int foo(int /* note, omitted parameter name*/){}
now gives an error.

$ gcc foo.c
foo.c: In function `foo':
foo.c:1: error: parameter name omitted

I'm not a language lawyer but I know there's scads of code 
that uses this as a clean way to show a fn doesn't 
actually use its parameters.  And I believe it's correct 
usage, many other compilers (VC, Borland at least) allow it. 
This would break a lot of code.  This shouldn't even be 
a warning unless it is specifically asked for. 
>How-To-Repeat:
gcc foo.c
>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
----gnatsweb-attachment----
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="foo.c"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="foo.c"

aW50IGZvbyhpbnQpe30NCg==


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]