https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88695
Anders Granlund changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88695
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
It's DR#316 that's relevant here (where the committee agreed with my
interpretation that implies this example is valid, and reiterated their
intent not to fix issues with unprototyped funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88695
--- Comment #4 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> See PR 64526 and DR 317.
(Forgot to reply instead of adding an additional comment)
Yes, the type of f does have a prototype.
That fact is however not rel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88695
--- Comment #3 from Anders Granlund ---
Yes, the type of f does have a prototype.
That fact is however not relevant here.
Note that I'm not making any calls to f here. I am only using f in a way
that requires its type to be compatible wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88695
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See PR 64526 and DR 317.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88695
--- Comment #1 from Anders Granlund ---
Correction:
The second standard reference should be 6.7.6.3/15 and not 6.7.3/15.
