This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@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]

Re: bfin c++ problem


> > That is rather unclear, unfortunately.
> > The question is what "the type" means.
> 
> The type of the function. It's entirely clear, give up.
> 
>

that's now an argument?

> > As far as I am aware, 8.3.5 only *mentions* the "equivalence of types",
> > but does not say where this is applicable.
> 
> int main(void) and int main() declare the same function. It has the
> same type, because it's the same function.
>

You won't find this in the standard.

Which is a problem!
Being involved with the "safety-and-security" industry, I can see the
enormous problems caused by such "standards". Nevertheless, the C++
standard has an important social role.

> > And in any case, for that to work, the option "std=c++14" had to be
> > used, or?
> 
> No, for several reasons including that G++ applies DRs retroactively
> and G++ has **always** accepted int main(void) as a valid definition
> for main.
>
> But in any case the OP is using GCC 6, so the default is -std=gnu++14.
>

That's fine.

> Seriously, why are you still banging on about this?
> 

Because we are language lawyers!

> 
> > Anyway, just removing the "void" seems to me the clearest solution.
> 
> But doesn't fix the OP's problem and is totally irrelevant.
> 

"Totally irrelevant"? The laywer knows that "totally" does not add, but
substracts from "irrelevant" ;-)
Would you teach such code, as Hello-World, the first program a C++ learner sees?

> > And according to
> >   C++ Standard Core Language Defect Reports and Accepted Issues,
> >   Revision 96
> >
> >   Issues with DR, accepted, DRWP, and WP status are NOT part of the
> >   International Standard for C++.
> > Don't know about "CD3", but it appears that is still not "in", or?
> 
> Irrelevant, the modified wording is part of C++14, which is the only
> C++ standard that is still an ISO standard.
> 
> Is there any need for this continued pedantry?  The OP's code is valid.
> 
> Give it a rest.

It's up to gcc anyway. Doesn't matter to me.
Don't worry.


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