[Bug c/34735] New: C99 6.7.4/2 is not diagnose

[Bug c/34735] New: C99 6.7.4/2 is not diagnose

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

This is not rejected:
static int a()
{
  return 0;
}

extern int f(void);

inline int f(void)
{
  return a();
}

---- CUT ---

This violates C99 6.7.4/2 which says:
An inline definition of a function with external linkage shall not contain a
definition of a
modifiable object with static storage duration, and shall not contain a
reference to an
identifier with internal linkage.


-- 
           Summary: C99 6.7.4/2 is not diagnose
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: accepts-invalid
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34735

[Bug c/34735] C99 6.7.4/3 is not diagnose

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-11 05:15 -------
We do reject this though:
static int a()
{
  return 0;
}
inline int f(void)
{
  return a();
}
extern int f(void);


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34735

[Bug c/34735] C99 6.7.4/3 is not diagnose

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-11 09:28 -------
Confirmed.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2008-01-11 09:28:29
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34735

[Bug c/34735] C99 6.7.4/3 is not diagnose

[geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-14 00:55 -------
The quoted paragraph does not apply to the first code example, because an
"inline definition" is defined in paragraph 6 as:

If all of the file scope declarations for a function in a translation
unit include the inline function specifier without extern, then the
definition in that translation unit is an inline definition.

In this case, one of the declarations does not include the inline function
specifier, so it's not an inline definition.

I am unclear on how the standard is supposed to apply to the second example,
but IMO we should give the warning anyway.


-- 

geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34735