Bug#707644: gcc-4.7: old-style parameter declarations v.s. ANSI C section 3.7.1 ?
Package: gcc-4.7
Version: 4.7.2-5
Severity: minor
Dear Maintainer,
With the follozing source code:
% cat file.c
typedef struct s_ {int i;} st;
void this(st) int st; {}
The compiler complains, but I am not sure about the pertinence of the error message:
% cc -c -o file.o file.c
file.c: In function ‘this’:
file.c:2:6: error: old-style parameter declarations in prototyped function definition
file.c:2:1: error: parameter name omitted
since changing the variable name st to xy in the source code, i.e.:
% cat file2.c
typedef struct s_ {int i;} st;
void this(xy) int xy; {}
makes the compiler happy:
% cc -c -o file2.o file2.c; echo $?
0
I /suspect/ it has to do with the ANSI C section 3.7.1 stating an identifier "shall" not be redeclared as a parameter. May it be possible to confirm/infirm?
If confirmed, then my request would be to have a more meaningful message.
Otherwise, apologizes -;
Thanks, Regards, Jean-Damien.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-686-pae (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages gcc-4.7 depends on:
ii binutils 2.22-8
ii cpp-4.7 4.7.2-5
ii gcc-4.7-base 4.7.2-5
ii libc6 2.13-38
ii libgcc1 1:4.7.2-5
ii libgmp10 2:5.0.5+dfsg-2
ii libgomp1 4.7.2-5
ii libitm1 4.7.2-5
ii libmpc2 0.9-4
ii libmpfr4 3.1.1-1
ii libquadmath0 4.7.2-5
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.7.dfsg-13
Versions of packages gcc-4.7 recommends:
ii libc6-dev 2.13-38
Versions of packages gcc-4.7 suggests:
pn binutils-gold <none>
pn gcc-4.7-doc <none>
pn gcc-4.7-locales <none>
pn gcc-4.7-multilib <none>
ii libcloog-ppl0 0.15.11-5
pn libgcc1-dbg <none>
pn libgomp1-dbg <none>
pn libitm1-dbg <none>
pn libmudflap0-4.7-dev <none>
pn libmudflap0-dbg <none>
pn libppl-c2 <none>
pn libppl7 <none>
pn libquadmath0-dbg <none>
-- no debconf information
Reply to: