From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-148480-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10987 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2005 13:20:03 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 10955 invoked by uid 48); 30 Jun 2005 13:19:57 -0000
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:20:00 -0000
From: "neil at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Message-ID: <20050630131955.22249.neil@gcc.gnu.org>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/22249] New: GCC does not reject an incompatible type declaration
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg03560.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

I don't believe the standard requires the following to be rejected, but as a QOI
issue I believe it should be.  The debatable point is whether you believe the
composite of the first two is specified by a function definition; if you do then
you must reject.  GCC rejects it if the order of the first two is switched.

void r(x) int (*x)[2]; {}
void r();
void r(int (*x)[3]);		/* Ideally rejected.  */

Flags are e.g. -Wall -std=c99 -pedantic

-- 
           Summary: GCC does not reject an incompatible type declaration
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.1.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: minor
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22249