Re: Compiler error during porting exercise
On 8/2/06, Otto Moerbeek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Michael C wrote:
...
Why is it that the MetroWerks CodeWarrior 3.1 cannot handle the following?
in header file (pcb.h):
intin_baddynamic (u_int16_t, u_int16_t);
in c file (pcb.c)
int
in_baddynamic (a, b)
u_int16_ta;
u_int16_tb;
{...}
CodeWarrior complains with a 'identifier redeclared' error.
Is it because the declaration is a different style to the definition?
Maybe, but this is legal C.
Legal GNU C, yes, but not legal ISO/ANSI C. This is a documented GNU
C extension; in the gcc info pages follow the C Extensions and then
Function Prototypes items.
Of course, OpenBSD has never supported compilation with anything but
*its own* gcc. This is just another example of an extension (albeit
one in plain gcc) that a compiler must support to correctly handle the
OpenBSD source tree.
Philip Guenther
Re: Compiler error during porting exercise
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Michael C wrote:
Hi,
I am trying some porting examples to winscw and I have a question:
Why is it that the MetroWerks CodeWarrior 3.1 cannot handle the following?
in header file (pcb.h):
intin_baddynamic (u_int16_t, u_int16_t);
in c file (pcb.c)
int
in_baddynamic (a, b)
u_int16_ta;
u_int16_tb;
{...}
CodeWarrior complains with a 'identifier redeclared' error.
Is it because the declaration is a different style to the definition?
I am not use -strict, maybe the compiler just can't handle it?
I have searched the whole tree and there is only one declaration and one
definition.
I cannot address the CodeWarrior directly, but sometimes things glitch
when the type of declaration made in pcb.h are made.
try instead in pcb.h
int in_baddynamic(u_int16_t a, u_int16_t b);
I agree, both types should compile. If this fixes it, you might complain
to MetroWerks.
Dave
--
Experience runs an expensive school, but fools will learn in no other.
-- Benjamin Franklin
