I don't believe the standard requires the following to be rejected, but as a QOI
issue I believe it should be. The debatable point is whether you believe the
composite of the first two is specified by a function definition; if you do then
you must reject. GCC rejects it if the order of the first two is switched.
void r(x) int (*x)[2]; {}
void r();
void r(int (*x)[3]); /* Ideally rejected. */
Flags are e.g. -Wall -std=c99 -pedantic
--
Summary: GCC does not reject an incompatible type declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22249