From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6006 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2005 12:36:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5974 invoked by uid 48); 16 Feb 2005 12:36:43 -0000 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050216123643.5971.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "schlie at comcast dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050216043359.19994.cyeoh@samba.org> References: <20050216043359.19994.cyeoh@samba.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/19994] warn on parameter name mismatch X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg01769.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-16 12:36 ------- (In reply to comment #4) To be more clear (independant of what most may or may not do, or rely upon), as within the body of a function definition, given that parameters are referanced by their symbolic name, not postion: int apples_per_basket ( int apples, int baskets ); int function ( int baskets, int apples) { return apple / baskets; /* i.e. not: return %0 - %1; referancing parameters by order not name, which C doen't support */ } Then it's reasonable to assume that if a prototype were declared with symbolic names which are inconsistent with the function's definition, it is quite reasonable to expect, if not desire, warning. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19994