On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Eus
wrote:
> Hi Ho!
>
> Sorry, if I sort of hijack this thread.
>
> On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 15:43 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
>> > > "int i;" is not the same as "extern int i;".
>> >
>> > Sorry for my ignorance but I have been reading and searching for the
>> > a
Hi Ho!
On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 12:40 -0700, James Dennett wrote:
> [I imagine Ian is aware of this anywyay, but to try to clarify...]
>
> At file scope, "int i;" with no initializer is a "tentative
> definition" in C, see 6.9.2/2; a tentative definition is an odd beast
> that works in some ways ra
Hi Ho!
On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 11:57 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> What you are describing is a common and traditional implementation of C,
> but it is not strictly standard conformant. The ISO C standard says
> that "int i;" is always a definition, and "extern int i;" is always a
> declaration
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Eus writes:
>
>> I think the difference between "int i;" and "extern int i;" at
>> file-scope in C is that "int i;" will only be treated as a definition if
>> it is not defined in another place in the same file/TU. IOW, its linkage
>> is
Eus writes:
> I think the difference between "int i;" and "extern int i;" at
> file-scope in C is that "int i;" will only be treated as a definition if
> it is not defined in another place in the same file/TU. IOW, its linkage
> is internal within the TU itself. But, "extern int i" is definitely
Hi Ho!
Sorry, if I sort of hijack this thread.
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 15:43 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > > "int i;" is not the same as "extern int i;".
> >
> > Sorry for my ignorance but I have been reading and searching for the
> > answer and I cannot tell what is the difference between "i
