-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 11:35:59PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it seems that gcc just hates a static function declaration inside a function.
>
> This code (without any include)
>
> static int bla(int x)
> {
> return (x != 1);
> }
> int main()
> {
> static int bla(int x);
> return(bla(0));
> }
>
> yields
>
> t.c: In function ‘main’:
> t.c:19:13: error: invalid storage class for function ‘bla’
> static int bla(int x);
> ^
>
> The compile time error vanishes if i move the declaration out of the function,
> or if i remove the "static", or if i remove the declaration completely
> (as it is surplus in both programs, mine and Fred's).
>
> I wonder what gives "static int bla(int x);" such a different meaning inside
> and outside a function. To my naive but long tested understanding, both
> should differ only by their scope.
Nested function definitions are a gcc-ism (please don't take this as a
pejorative term: personally I do like gcc-isms, but one should know when
one's making use of them).
Here's more about it. And yes, static or extern don't work with them. But
auto does. And g++ doesn't like them (I guess there's a reason):
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Nested-Functions.html
Cheers
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEUEARECAAYFAln1nYAACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYC3gCWJ3TRCDRRDzgT4HxqNYLp28w2
awCeO7tWrqxn3yLKF48daNLizuWa+NU=
=o1BZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
