🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4h991r$qon@segfault.monkeys.com>
rfg@monkeys.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:

<snip>
RFG: >carbon% head static*.c
RFG: >==> static_bug.c <==
RFG: >static const char foo[];
RFG: >
RFG: >int
RFG: >main(int argc, const char *argv[]) {
RFG: >  printf("foo = '%s'\n",foo);
RFG: >  return 0;
RFG: >}
RFG: >
RFG: >#ifdef DEFINE_IT
RFG: >static const char foo[] = "bar";
RFG: >#endif
RFG: >
RFG: >==> static_bug2.c <==
RFG: >const char foo[] = "baz";
RFG: >carbon% gcc static*.c
RFG: >carbon% a.out
RFG: >foo = 'baz'
RFG: 
RFG: I believe that in this case, the proper ANSI required behavior would be to
RFG: print:
RFG: 
RFG: 	foo = ''

No. It is undefined.

RFG: 
RFG: because there is some special clause in the C standard about tenative
RFG: declarations (e.g. your first declaration of the `foo' array) and their
RFG: handling at the end of a translation unit (i.e. `static_bug.c') in cases
RFG: where no non-tenative declaration/definition has been provided... and that
RFG: rule says that the compiler must act as if the data object in question
RFG: has an initializer of zero.  Thus, I believe that the compiler should
RFG: simulate the following definition at the end of the translation unit
RFG: unit `static_bug.c':
RFG: 
RFG: 	static const char foo[] = { 0 };

Except that a tentative declaration of an identifier with internal
linkage cannot specify an incomplete type.

Cheers
Tanmoy
--
tanmoy@qcd.lanl.gov(128.165.23.46) DECNET: BETA::"tanmoy@lanl.gov"(1.218=1242)
Tanmoy Bhattacharya O:T-8(MS B285)LANL,NM87545 H:#9,3000,Trinity Drive,NM87544
Others see <gopher://yaleinfo.yale.edu:7700/00/Internet-People/internet-mail>,
<http://alpha.acast.nova.edu/cgi-bin/inmgq.pl>or<ftp://csd4.csd.uwm.edu/pub/
internetwork-mail-guide>. -- <http://nqcd.lanl.gov/people/tanmoy/tanmoy.html>
fax: 1 (505) 665 3003   voice: 1 (505) 665 4733    [ Home: 1 (505) 662 5596 ]