On Wed, 3 Sep 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Hi Joseph, > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 03:44:28PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Sep 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > > > Hi Joseph, > > > > > > I'd like to ping about this thread. > > > > As far as I know, nothing has been resolved about the semantics (and then > > associated documentation and testcases) in the case of parameter forward > > declarations where multiple declarations for a parameter are inconsistent > > in whether it's declared as an array or a pointer, or in the array length > > if declared as an array. In order to add this feature as a GNU extension, > > we need defined, documented, tested semantics for how it interacts with > > the other GNU extension of parameter forward declarations. > > I'd say what we need is to diagnose every case where this is tricky in > forward declarations of arrays. Once we have the diagnostic, do you > still want to define the behavior? Do we define behavior after a > constraint violation?
Constraint violation is one way to define things. If that's the desired definition, of course it also needs to be implemented. -- Joseph S. Myers josmy...@redhat.com
