On Aug 3, 2014, at 2:59 AM, Ioi Lam <ioi....@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> David, thanks for the comments. I will fix the code as you suggested.
>
>> 225 int index = 0; // Defined here for portability! Do not move
>>
>> ??? Do we have a C compiler that can't declare loop variables?
> I probably had two loops using the "index" variable. I remember some old C++
> compilers would be confused if you do
>
> for (int index=0; ...) {}
> for (int index=0; ...) {}
>
> and would complain that "index" was declared twice. In any case, I will
> remove the comment here and move the declaration of "index" into the "for"
> statement.
gcc has had -ffor-scope for a *very* long time; I found it mentioned in docs
for g++ 2.95.
-ffor-scope
-fno-for-scope
If -ffor-scope is specified, the scope of variables declared in a
for-init-statement is limited to the ‘for’ loop itself, as specified by the C++
standard. If -fno-for-scope is specified, the scope of variables declared in a
for-init-statement extends to the end of the enclosing scope, as was the case
in old versions of G++, and other (traditional) implementations of C++.
If neither flag is given, the default is to follow the standard, but to allow
and give a warning for old-style code that would otherwise be invalid, or have
different behavior.
I have no knowledge of other compilers’ conformance (or lack thereof) to c++98
for-loop scoping rules.
