From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-46092-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8721 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2001 23:22:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 8648 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2001 23:22:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.netic.de) (212.9.160.11)
  by sourceware.cygnus.com with SMTP; 16 Nov 2001 23:22:11 -0000
Received: by mail.netic.de (Smail3.2.0.111/mail.s.netic.de)
	via LF.net GmbH Internet Services
	via remoteip 212.9.163.108
	via remotehost mail.enyo.de with esmtp
	for gcc.gnu.org
	id m164sIM-001X2rC; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 00:21:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (helo=deneb.enyo.de ident=exim)
	by mail.enyo.de with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1)
	id 164sHS-0007qi-00; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 00:20:18 +0100
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 3.12 #1)
	id 164sej-0000wm-00; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 00:44:21 +0100
To: Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>
Cc: guerby@acm.org,  dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca,  gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
References: <200111161928.fAGJSW44010685@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
	<200111161935.fAGJZTf17398@ulmo.localdomain>
	<20011116203549.A1506@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:03:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <20011116203549.A1506@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> (Neil Booth's
 message of "Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:35:49 +0000")
Message-ID: <87herub7sa.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00412.txt.bz2

Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> writes:

> Using PARAMS ((void)) is fine whatever your compiler; on K & R it expands
> to () and for ANSI compilers it becomes (void).

I think for strict C89 compilers, it has to become (), too, because
you cannot mix prototypes and old-style function definitions there.

I'm not sure whether C99 compilers have to reject such code or not, or
may silently generate code which does not work as intended.