* Is *& Legal?
@ 1999-11-09 9:02 Erik Berry
1999-11-09 9:18 ` Eric Ladner
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Erik Berry @ 1999-11-09 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: help-gcc
Some compilers allow function definitions like this in header files:
int my_function(char *&next);
Is the *& construct legal in strict ANSI C? If so, is there a way to
coax gcc (GNU c compiler) to accept this syntax? Apparently some HP/SUN
compilers accept this by default, but gcc doesn't.
Thanks,
Erik
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Is *& Legal?
1999-11-09 9:02 Is *& Legal? Erik Berry
@ 1999-11-09 9:18 ` Eric Ladner
1999-11-30 23:28 ` Eric Ladner
1999-11-09 23:44 ` Martin Kahlert
1999-11-30 23:28 ` Erik Berry
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Ladner @ 1999-11-09 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Erik Berry; +Cc: help-gcc
Erik Berry wrote:
> Some compilers allow function definitions like this in header files:
>
> int my_function(char *&next);
>
> Is the *& construct legal in strict ANSI C? If so, is there a way to
> coax gcc (GNU c compiler) to accept this syntax? Apparently some HP/SUN
> compilers accept this by default, but gcc doesn't.
>
> Thanks,
> Erik
You may just need to add parens to avoid order of operations confusion
between different compilers.
Eric
--
================================================================
Eric Ladner | HPUX Systems Admin, Oracle DBA
Pascagoula Refinery | Java Programmer, Perl scripter, C++
Chevron Products Company | programmer, etc., etc., etc.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Is *& Legal?
1999-11-09 9:02 Is *& Legal? Erik Berry
1999-11-09 9:18 ` Eric Ladner
@ 1999-11-09 23:44 ` Martin Kahlert
1999-11-30 23:28 ` Martin Kahlert
1999-11-30 23:28 ` Erik Berry
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Martin Kahlert @ 1999-11-09 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: help-gcc
In article < MPG.129004dc43a51770989688@news.wustl.edu >,
Erik Berry <eberry@please.remove.aol.com> writes:
> Some compilers allow function definitions like this in header files:
>
> int my_function(char *&next);
Isn't that a reference to a char pointer in C++?
Perhaps you missed some ifdef c++ stuff?
Bye,
Martin.
--
The early bird gets the worm. If you want something else for
breakfast, get up later.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Is *& Legal?
1999-11-09 9:18 ` Eric Ladner
@ 1999-11-30 23:28 ` Eric Ladner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Ladner @ 1999-11-30 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Erik Berry; +Cc: help-gcc
Erik Berry wrote:
> Some compilers allow function definitions like this in header files:
>
> int my_function(char *&next);
>
> Is the *& construct legal in strict ANSI C? If so, is there a way to
> coax gcc (GNU c compiler) to accept this syntax? Apparently some HP/SUN
> compilers accept this by default, but gcc doesn't.
>
> Thanks,
> Erik
You may just need to add parens to avoid order of operations confusion
between different compilers.
Eric
--
================================================================
Eric Ladner | HPUX Systems Admin, Oracle DBA
Pascagoula Refinery | Java Programmer, Perl scripter, C++
Chevron Products Company | programmer, etc., etc., etc.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Is *& Legal?
1999-11-09 9:02 Is *& Legal? Erik Berry
1999-11-09 9:18 ` Eric Ladner
1999-11-09 23:44 ` Martin Kahlert
@ 1999-11-30 23:28 ` Erik Berry
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Erik Berry @ 1999-11-30 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: help-gcc
Some compilers allow function definitions like this in header files:
int my_function(char *&next);
Is the *& construct legal in strict ANSI C? If so, is there a way to
coax gcc (GNU c compiler) to accept this syntax? Apparently some HP/SUN
compilers accept this by default, but gcc doesn't.
Thanks,
Erik
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Is *& Legal?
1999-11-09 23:44 ` Martin Kahlert
@ 1999-11-30 23:28 ` Martin Kahlert
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Martin Kahlert @ 1999-11-30 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: help-gcc
In article < MPG.129004dc43a51770989688@news.wustl.edu >,
Erik Berry <eberry@please.remove.aol.com> writes:
> Some compilers allow function definitions like this in header files:
>
> int my_function(char *&next);
Isn't that a reference to a char pointer in C++?
Perhaps you missed some ifdef c++ stuff?
Bye,
Martin.
--
The early bird gets the worm. If you want something else for
breakfast, get up later.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-11-30 23:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1999-11-09 9:02 Is *& Legal? Erik Berry
1999-11-09 9:18 ` Eric Ladner
1999-11-30 23:28 ` Eric Ladner
1999-11-09 23:44 ` Martin Kahlert
1999-11-30 23:28 ` Martin Kahlert
1999-11-30 23:28 ` Erik Berry
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).