[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#707644: marked as done (gcc-4.7: old-style parameter declarations v.s. ANSI C section 3.7.1 ?)

Your message dated Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:24:48 +0000
with message-id <E1Z7IZc-0001tY-Ii@franck.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#789156: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #707644,
regarding gcc-4.7: old-style parameter declarations v.s. ANSI C section 3.7.1 ?
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
707644: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=707644
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
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

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 4.7.4-3+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package gcc-4.7 has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/789156

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Luca Falavigna (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

--- End Message ---
Reply to: