This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
- From: "uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 14 Jun 2005 10:36:15 -0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
- References: <20050515210841.21594.danglin@gcc.gnu.org>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-14 10:36 -------
A change like this:
static void
+eoshift0 (gfc_array_char * , const gfc_array_char *,
+ int, const char *, int);
+
+static void
eoshift0 (gfc_array_char * ret, const gfc_array_char * array,
int shift, const char * pbound, int which)
doesn't have any effect, since a function definition in non-K&R
style already provides prototype information to subsequent code,
same as a function declaration does. (A declaration is useful
and required at places where the function definition is *not*
already seen.)
In fact, I thought that since we require C89 for the C parts of
the compiler, the coding style recommends *not* providing such
superfluous declarations ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594