Article View: comp.std.c
Article #5063Re: static functions broken in non-Unix compilers?
From: Bob Larson
Date: Sat, 28 May 1988 03:55
Date: Sat, 28 May 1988 03:55
15 lines
1153 bytes
1153 bytes
In article <138@pigs.UUCP> haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes:
[discussing ANSI c function declarations:]
> Doug Gwyn, I believe, wrote in a follow
>up article, for those of you who missed it, that yes, you must
>declare the function to have the same storage class as the actual
>function definition itself has.
Primos (Prime) C is an exmaple of a pre-ansi compiler that does require
this. ANSI was not inovating, they were just following the strictest
existing practice.
--
Bob Larson Arpa: Blarson@Ecla.Usc.Edu blarson@skat.usc.edu
Uucp: {sdcrdcf,cit-vax}!oberon!skat!blarson
Prime mailing list: info-prime-request%fns1@ecla.usc.edu
oberon!fns1!info-prime-request
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9411@oberon.USC.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ll-xn!oberon!skat.usc.edu!blarsonReferences:
<120@pigs.UUCP> <126@pigs.UUCP> <138@pigs.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ll-xn!oberon!skat.usc.edu!blarson From: blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: static functions broken in non-Unix compilers? Message-ID: <9411@oberon.USC.EDU> Date: 28 May 88 03:55:21 GMT References: <120@pigs.UUCP> <126@pigs.UUCP> <138@pigs.UUCP> Sender: news@oberon.USC.EDU Reply-To: blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson) Organization: USC AIS, Los Angeles Lines: 14