On 22.01.2018 16:20, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21 January 2018 at 12:08, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Jay K schrieb:
extern const int foo = 123;
Why does this warn?
This is a valid portable form, with the same meaning
across all compilers, and, importantly, portably
to C and C++.
I also wondered about this.
In C99 ยง6.9.2 "External object definitions" there's actually
the following example in clause 4:
extern int i3 = 3; // definition, external linkage
That's a different case. There's no advantage to the 'extern' here,
because the code means the same thing in C and C++ without the
'extern', so just leave it out.
I'd rather like to know why GCC is throwing a warning here.
It's clear how to hack the C source, but that's a different point.
It's just the case that I don't see any problem with that construct,
and it was worth an explicit example in the standard. Or is it
common practice to warn constructs that are "no advantage"?
Johann
