[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       pcc-list
Subject:    Re: Function declarations without return type fails compiling.
From:       Anders Magnusson <ragge () ludd ! ltu ! se>
Date:       2010-05-31 5:50:30
Message-ID: 4C034E26.1040403 () ludd ! ltu ! se
[Download RAW message or body]

Morning,

Jesus Sanchez wrote:
> ---Function declarations without return type fails compiling.
>
>     Declaring a function ("func" for instance) without return type makes
> PCC fail at compiling. PCC seems to dont make assumptions with
> declarations and defaulting "int" as return type, but with function
> definitions it works. Is this a c99 feature? I haven't found anything in
> ISO/IEC 9899:TC3 so I wonder if I'm messing things up.
>
> anyway here's a example of code that fails compiling.
Other people has already responded, but I can give the reasons it don't 
work
in pcc anymore:
- Just typing "func(); " to declare is very uncommon and would clutter 
up the
  parsing code even more, so I removed it when prototype support was added.
- "func(); " matches different rules in yacc than "func(){}", and the 
latter seems to
  still be used so I left it.
- "func(){}" is still allowed in C99 (see 6.11) but "func(); " is not 
mentioned.

-- Ragge


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> // simple declaration without return type
> // i'm supposing int as return type
> func();  // ERROR doesn't compile with PCC
>
> // simple definition of func that only returns 1
> func(){ // works on PCC
>    return 1;
> }
>
> int main(){
>    return 0;
> }
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for your time.
> -J
>
>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]