This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: IMA corner case with forward declarations of statics
Dale Johannesen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Are you sure? 6.2.2p4 looks unambiguous that the first declaration
>> does have external linkage, but I remember finding a place that said
>> that a declaration with 'extern' and no initializer had indeterminate
>> linkage, which the subsequent declaration with 'static' retroactively
>> rendered into internal linkage.
> This is correct, you're thinking of 6.9.2. Your example is valid.
I don't follow your logic. Here's the first two paragraphs of 6.9.2
(the third is clearly irrelevant and the remainder are examples):
1 If the declaration of an identifier for an object has file scope
and an initializer, the declaration is an external definition for
[not the present situation]
2 A declaration of an identifier for an object that has file scope
without an initializer, and without a storage-class specifier or
with the storage-class specifier static, constitutes a tentative
[... so a declaration with the storage-class specifier 'extern' and no
initializer does _not_ constitute a tentative definition]
If a translation unit contains one or more tentative definitions
for an identifier, and the translation unit contains no external
definition for that identifier, then the behavior is exactly as if
the translation unit contains a file scope declaration of that
identifier, with the composite type as of the end of the
translation unit, with an initializer equal to 0.
[this is what happens if you do have a tentative definition, which we
... so I find nothing here to support the claim that the program is
valid. I've now gone over to Geoff's opinion that it isn't, and
am proceeding on that theory.