Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
Michael Walter wrote:
Uh, C89 is an ANSI/ISO C.
I'm not enough of a language lawyer to know when various features came
into to the language, but
gcc -std=c89 test.c
does *NOT* warn about declaration ordering issues. At least not with
gcc version 3.3.4 (De
Sam Ruby wrote:
Michael Walter wrote:
Uh, C89 is an ANSI/ISO C.
I'm not enough of a language lawyer to know when various features came
into to the language, but
gcc -std=c89 test.c
does *NOT* warn about declaration ordering issues. At least not with
gcc version 3.3.4 (Debian 1:3.3.4-6sarge1)
Michael Walter wrote:
Uh, C89 is an ANSI/ISO C.
I'm not enough of a language lawyer to know when various features came
into to the language, but
gcc -std=c89 test.c
does *NOT* warn about declaration ordering issues. At least not with
gcc version 3.3.4 (Debian 1:3.3.4-6sarge1)
- Sam Ruby
Uh, C89 is an ANSI/ISO C.
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:55:21 -0500, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> +void init () {
> >> +SUPER();
> >> +PMC *func_args = pmc_new(INTERP, dynclass_PyList);
> >
>
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+void init () {
+SUPER();
+PMC *func_args = pmc_new(INTERP, dynclass_PyList);
Please be careful to avoid definitions after code. This doesn't compile
with C89 compilers like gcc 2.95.3
Sorry about that.
Stupid questio
Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +void init () {
> +SUPER();
> +PMC *func_args = pmc_new(INTERP, dynclass_PyList);
Please be careful to avoid definitions after code. This doesn't compile
with C89 compilers like gcc 2.95.3
leo