Stephen Warren wrote: > On Fri, March 14, 2008 2:23 am, Phil Dibowitz wrote: >> That said, it appears that variables declared not at the top was in fact >> not >> part of the c89 spec. But there was definitely pre-ANSI C. >> >> I'm annoyed that gcc doesn't get angry about that stuff. It really should. >> Ah well, I'll fix it up next time I have a few minutes, won't take long. > > I seem to recall gcc supported "inline" variable declarations as a gcc > extension to non-c99 C. Using -ansi might not be enough to get it not to. > Isn't there a -strict or -strict-ansi or -c89/90 flag that does that?
Yeah - I mentioned it in a later email, -Wdeclaration-after-statement -ansi and -c89 (aliases for each other) didn't do it. -- Phil Dibowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Source software and tech docs Insanity Palace of Metallica http://www.phildev.net/ http://www.ipom.com/ "Never write it in C if you can do it in 'awk'; Never do it in 'awk' if 'sed' can handle it; Never use 'sed' when 'tr' can do the job; Never invoke 'tr' when 'cat' is sufficient; Avoid using 'cat' whenever possible" -- Taylor's Laws of Programming
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________ concordance-devel mailing list concordance-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/concordance-devel
