This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc-in-cxx update
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <dosreis at gmail dot com>
- To: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 00:58:03 -0500
- Subject: Re: gcc-in-cxx update
- References: <m3hc0729jr.fsf@google.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904291120200.23778@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <6c33472e0904290513j44b3cafdl77b38de0cd2619cd@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904291321570.25453@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <6c33472e0904290642j4b243ba3u4ec76b71b0c0e410@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904291456280.27093@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <6c33472e0904290819o3b0dafd4s750be6543484dabe@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904291537250.27093@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <6c33472e0904290854w6e36bfaby7e8a8c27d63c54ac@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
<lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/4/29 Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>:
>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/4/29 Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>:
>>> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> >> BTW, why is this warned about?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I imagine because in C it is not conventional to use "extern" when
>>> >> > defining something, only on a declaration that is not a definition.
>>> >>
>>> >> But may it lead to some confusion or subtle error? It seems overly
>>> >> pedantic to me if it is just a matter of style, because ?extern is
>>> >> implicit if missing,
>>> >
>>> > "int i;" is not the same as "extern int i;".
>>>
>>> Sorry for my ignorance but I have been reading and searching for the
>>> answer and I cannot tell what is the difference between "int i = 1"
>>> and "extern int i = 1" at file-scope in C.
>>
>> I did not say those were different, I said the uninitialized case was
>> different, so "extern is implicit if missing" is not a general C rule.
>
> OK, then. I assumed that we were discussing about the initialized
> case, which is the origin of this thread. Hence, my suggestion stands:
> get rid of the warning.
I do not follow your reasoning here.
BTW, I already the history of the warning.
-- Gaby