Re: Declarations in switches, errors

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #644

#644

From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 1989 00:25

18 lines
1308 bytes

In article <30540@news.Think.COM> barmar@kulla (Barry Margolin) writes:
>Well, since the initial value of automatic variables is undefined, a
>conforming implementation COULD execute them.

NO, not in general.  (The only time it could occur is if it would
have no observable effect!  What would be the point of that?)

>why does the standard permit initializers in declarations at the head
>of a switch body, if they are required to be ignored?

Because it's attempting to standardize C, not some vaguely similar
language.

The initializer IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE IGNORED.  It is treated
EXACTLY like any other auto initializer.  Static initializers
in a switch body are also treated like any other static initializers.

You guys have the wrong mental model of C initialization!

Technical Details

Message-ID: <11202@smoke.BRL.MIL>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!ginosko!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn

References:

<561@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <11158@smoke.BRL.MIL> <637@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1989Sep30.052000.13719@utzoo.uucp> <30540@news.Think.COM>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!ginosko!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Declarations in switches, errors
Message-ID: <11202@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 1 Oct 89 00:25:47 GMT
References: <561@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <11158@smoke.BRL.MIL> <637@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1989Sep30.052000.13719@utzoo.uucp> <30540@news.Think.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 18

Reply to Parent Message