[Bug c/29129] New: Strictly conforming code rejected

[Bug c/29129] New: Strictly conforming code rejected

[neil at gcc dot gnu dot org]

Compile the following with -std=c99 -pedantic-errors

void f(unsigned int [*]);

foo.c:1: error: '[*]' not allowed in other than a declaration


-- 
           Summary: Strictly conforming code rejected
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.2.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2 Regression] Strictly conforming code rejected

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-09-19 03:24 -------
Confirmed, a regression from 4.1.2 which we accepted this but gave a warning
saying we don't implement the semantics yet.  Since we accepted this with a
warning before and now reject it, I am going to say this is a regression.

Note I think Mike Stump's work in this area caused this bug but I am not 100%
for sure.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |blocker
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
           Keywords|                            |rejects-valid
      Known to fail|                            |4.2.0
      Known to work|                            |4.1.2
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2006-09-19 03:24:24
               date|                            |
            Summary|Strictly conforming code    |[4.2 Regression] Strictly
                   |rejected                    |conforming code rejected
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.2.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2 Regression] Strictly conforming code rejected

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  2006-09-19 11:10 -------
Subject: Re:   New: Strictly conforming code rejected

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, neil at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> Compile the following with -std=c99 -pedantic-errors
> 
> void f(unsigned int [*]);
> 
> foo.c:1: error: '[*]' not allowed in other than a declaration

As the diagnostic indicates, "unsigned int [*]" is not a declaration with 
function prototype scope but a type name.  Feel free to submit a DR 
regarding the exact meaning of "can only be used in declarations with 
function prototype scope".


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2 Regression] Strictly conforming code rejected

[neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk]

------- Comment #3 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk  2006-09-19 13:04 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.2 Regression] Strictly conforming code rejected

joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:-

> > foo.c:1: error: '[*]' not allowed in other than a declaration
> 
> As the diagnostic indicates, "unsigned int [*]" is not a declaration with 
> function prototype scope but a type name.  Feel free to submit a DR 
> regarding the exact meaning of "can only be used in declarations with 
> function prototype scope".

I'm quite happy my reading is correct, thanks, but don't let me stop
you.

I'd be interested in why you believe an alternative reading is
justified despite its explicit inclusion in the grammar of 6.7.6,
plus examples.  DR 295 is an example of continuing imprecise wording
that is far more gratuitous.

Neil.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2 Regression] Strictly conforming code rejected

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2 Regression] [DR needed] unnamed parameters using [*]

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-09-21 12:30 -------
Suspending pending DR.  Neil's interpretation would be a more useful sense of
the
standard, but there is a deliberate decision to err on the side of rejecting
code
rather than of accidentally creating an extension.

If the WG14 Spring 2007 meeting does happen in the UK as proposed then I may
try
to prepare DRs for this and other issues.


-- 

jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |SUSPENDED
            Summary|[4.2 Regression] Strictly   |[4.2 Regression] [DR needed]
                   |conforming code rejected    |unnamed parameters using [*]


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2 Regression] [DR needed] unnamed parameters using [*]

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-10-16 23:48 -------
Given that Joseph doesn't think we should change the behavior, we shouldn't
have this on the release watchlist.


-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P2                          |P4


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2/4.3 Regression] [DR needed] unnamed parameters using [*]

[jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|blocker                     |normal


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2/4.3 Regression] [DR needed] unnamed parameters using [*]

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-14 22:27 -------
Will not be fixed in 4.2.0; retargeting at 4.2.1.


-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.2.0                       |4.2.1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2/4.3 Regression] [DR needed] unnamed parameters using [*]

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.2.1                       |4.2.2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2/4.3 Regression] [DR needed] unnamed parameters using [*]

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-10-09 19:22 -------
Change target milestone to 4.2.3, as 4.2.2 has been released.


-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.2.2                       |4.2.3


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2/4.3 Regression] [DR needed] unnamed parameters using [*]

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-02-01 16:53 -------
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.


-- 

jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.2.3                       |4.2.4


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] [DR needed] unnamed parameters using [*]

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-05-19 20:22 -------
4.2.4 is being released, changing milestones to 4.2.5.


-- 

jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.2.4                       |4.2.5


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] [DR#341] unnamed parameters using [*]

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-02-03 20:33 -------
The conclusion on DR#341 was that this should indeed be accepted; I'll fix
this.


-- 

jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|SUSPENDED                   |ASSIGNED
           Priority|P4                          |P2
   Last reconfirmed|2006-09-19 03:24:24         |2009-02-03 20:33:31
               date|                            |
            Summary|[4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] [DR|[4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression]
                   |needed] unnamed parameters  |[DR#341] unnamed parameters
                   |using [*]                   |using [*]


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] [DR#341] unnamed parameters using [*]

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-02-04 00:59 -------
Subject: Bug 29129

Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Feb  4 00:59:21 2009
New Revision: 143918

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143918
Log:
        PR c/29129
        * c-decl.c (grokdeclarator): Mark [*] arrays in field declarators
        as having variable size.  Do not give an error for unnamed
        parameters with [*] declarators.  Give a warning for type names
        with [*] declarators and mark them as variable size.
        * c-parser.c (c_parser_sizeof_expression): Do not give an error
        for sizeof applied to [*] type names.

testsuite:
        * c90-arraydecl-1.c: Do not expect error for [*] in abstract
        declarator.
        * vla-6.c: Likewise.  Expect warning not error for [*] lexically
        inside function prototype but not part of parameter declarator.
        * vla-11.c: New test.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vla-11.c
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/c-decl.c
    trunk/gcc/c-parser.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c90-arraydecl-1.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vla-6.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129

[Bug c/29129] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] [DR#341] unnamed parameters using [*]

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-02-04 01:01 -------
Fixed in 4.4 and it's safest not to apply the fix to release branches.


-- 

jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|4.2.5                       |4.4.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129