From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-24207-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30221 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2002 17:56:06 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30191 invoked by uid 71); 8 Nov 2002 17:56:05 -0000
Resent-Date: 8 Nov 2002 17:56:05 -0000
Resent-Message-ID: <20021108175605.30190.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
Resent-From: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org (GNATS Filer)
Resent-Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Resent-Reply-To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, jdonner0@earthlink.net
Received: (qmail 25504 invoked by uid 61); 8 Nov 2002 17:52:24 -0000
Message-Id: <20021108175224.25503.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:56:00 -0000
From: jdonner0@earthlink.net
Reply-To: jdonner0@earthlink.net
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
X-Send-Pr-Version: gnatsweb-2.9.3 (1.1.1.1.2.31)
Subject: c/8506: 3.3 (1104) disallowing omission of parameters in fn def
X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00421.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>


>Number:         8506
>Category:       c
>Synopsis:       3.3 (1104) disallowing omission of parameters in fn def
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          rejects-legal
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Fri Nov 08 09:56:04 PST 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Jeff Donner
>Release:        gcc version 3.3 20021104 (experimental)
>Organization:
>Environment:
cygwin, Win2K
>Description:
gcc now makes it an error to omit parameter names, eg

int foo(int /* note, omitted parameter name*/){}
now gives an error.

$ gcc foo.c
foo.c: In function `foo':
foo.c:1: error: parameter name omitted

I'm not a language lawyer but I know there's scads of code 
that uses this as a clean way to show a fn doesn't 
actually use its parameters.  And I believe it's correct 
usage, many other compilers (VC, Borland at least) allow it. 
This would break a lot of code.  This shouldn't even be 
a warning unless it is specifically asked for. 
>How-To-Repeat:
gcc foo.c
>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
----gnatsweb-attachment----
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="foo.c"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="foo.c"

aW50IGZvbyhpbnQpe30NCg==