Re: c/6968: functions that shouldn't accept arguments accept infinite arguments (eg; test() )

[Terry Moreland <tmorelan@q.cis.uoguelph.ca>]

The following reply was made to PR c/6968; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Terry Moreland <tmorelan@q.cis.uoguelph.ca>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: zack@gcc.gnu.org, <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: c/6968: functions that shouldn't accept arguments accept infinite
 arguments (eg; test() )
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 15:29:18 -0400 (EDT)

 ok, I'll accept that, but still passing arguments to a function defined in this
 way should still produce a warning since the arguments are inaccessible from
 within the function and it just looks wrong
 
 Terry
 
 On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
 
 > On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Terry Moreland wrote:
 > 
 > > mean that in c99 void test() is a function that takes no arguments since 
 > > enmpty identifier list is part of the function definition and as such the 
 > > void test() example should produce an error in c99, but doesn't in gcc 3.1 using
 > > -std=c99 
 > > 
 > > please let me know if I am wrong, I have slept in a while and the iso c99 spec
 > > can be very wordy at times
 > 
 > It specifies, for the purposes of the definition, that it has no 
 > parameters.  It does not, for the purposes of subsequent calls to the 
 > function, give it a type that includes a prototype, so the subsequent 
 > calls are not checked.
 > 
 > 
 
 -- 
 --------------------------------------------------------
 Terry Moreland       |  Computer and Information Science
 tmorelan@uoguelph.ca |              University of Guelph
 
 If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use?  
 Two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?
     - Seymour Cray (1925-1996), father of supercomputing
 --------------------------------------------------------