This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: GCC rejecting (I think) valid code


Andreas Schwab wrote:

There is more to C than the syntax.  The standard also contains semantic
constraints that are to be applied on top of the syntax.  I can't check
C89, but in C99 section 6.7.2 contains an exhaustive list of allowed
type-specifier sets in a type-name, and this list only allows a single
typedef-name not mixed with other type-specifiers for each type-name.

and that certainly makes sense, because the idea of typedef is to abstract type names, and using unsigned with a general typedef name makes no sense unless you think of typedef as simple macro substitution, but that's not how typedef is defined (as someone said earlier, if you want simple macro substitution, use #define!)

Andreas.




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