Article View: comp.std.c
Article #2415incomplete types for objects with linkage--prior art?
From: James Jones
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 1991 23:52
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 1991 23:52
13 lines
795 bytes
795 bytes
A posting a while back indicated that the following is strictly-conforming:
struct woof arf;
struct woof {
int i, j, k;
};
It conforms because the semantics in 3.5 only refer to identifiers with no
linkage when constraining the type to be complete by the end of the declarator.
I'm curious--is there prior art for this interpretation?
James Jones
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<5024@mcrware.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!uunet!mcrware!jejonesShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!uunet!mcrware!jejones From: jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: incomplete types for objects with linkage--prior art? Keywords: 3.5, p.58, lines 30-31 Message-ID: <5024@mcrware.UUCP> Date: 13 Feb 91 23:52:55 GMT Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Ia. Lines: 13