From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-24209-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4814 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2002 18:16:05 -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 4787 invoked by uid 71); 8 Nov 2002 18:16:04 -0000
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 10:16:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20021108181604.4785.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
Subject: Re: c/8506: 3.3 (1104) disallowing omission of parameters in fn 
 def
Reply-To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00423.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR c/8506; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
To: jdonner0@earthlink.net
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Subject: Re: c/8506: 3.3 (1104) disallowing omission of parameters in fn 
 def
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 18:13:13 +0000

 This is a C++ism.  It's not part of C, and I don't believe GCC has ever 
 allowed this.
 
 R.