Article View: comp.std.c
Article #1777Re: X3J11 Pleasanton meeting summary
From: James Jones
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 1990 17:36
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 1990 17:36
31 lines
1302 bytes
1302 bytes
In article <13996@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
> struct foo x;
> struct foo { int i; };
> /* the above is strictly conforming; incomplete-type objects can
> be defined, so long as by the end of the translation unit the
> type becomes complete so that storage can then be allocated */
Gee. This seems to me to be rather inconsistent with other constraints
placed on C that appear to have as their justification allowing straight-
forward one-pass compilation. Would it really be permissible to have
struct foo;
woof()
{
struct foo x;
/* ... */
}
/* ...eventually, at the end of the source file... */
struct foo {
int i;
};
for example? Can one refer to fields in incomplete structures as long
as they occur in a complete declaration that appears by translation
unit's end?
James Jones
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<3206@mcrware.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcrware!jejonesReferences:
<13996@smoke.BRL.MIL>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcrware!jejones From: jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: X3J11 Pleasanton meeting summary Keywords: X3J11 Pleasanton meeting C standard interpretations Message-ID: <3206@mcrware.UUCP> Date: 3 Oct 90 17:36:03 GMT References: <13996@smoke.BRL.MIL> Reply-To: jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa Lines: 31