Regression in 4.0 (sort of)

[Zack Weinberg]

Dale Johannesen <dalej@apple.com> writes:

> Consider the nonstandard C program
>
> main() {
>    foo();
> }
> void foo() {
> }
>
> Previous versions of gcc accepted this with a warning; 4.0 gives an
> error.  This appears to date to Zack's rewrite of duplicate_decls
> early this year.  Naturally, this is causing some programs not to
> compile any more.  Geoff thinks this may be unintentional, and
> certainly it doesn't seem that any bugs that would actually cause
> anything to break would slip through if we treated it as a warning.
> Is this an intentional change?

No; in fact I'm surprised that this exception

> The following exception is already made for a different, but quite
> similar, case.
>        /* Permit void foo (...) to match int foo (...) if the latter is
>           the definition and implicit int was used.  See
>           c-torture/compile/920625-2.c.  */

doesn't cover this case.  I suppose it's because there's a difference
between "declared implicitly" and "declared using implicit int".  I'd
be in favor of extending this case to cover your example.

zw