PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES nonstandard ?

PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES nonstandard ?

[Momchil Velikov]

ISO/IEC 9899:1999 - 6.5.2.2  Function calls

       [#7] If the expression that denotes the called function  has
       a  type  that  does  include  a prototype, the arguments are
       implicitly converted, as if by assignment, to the  types  of
       the  corresponding  parameters,  taking  the  type  of  each
       parameter to be the  unqualified  version  of  its  declared
       type.    The  ellipsis  notation  in  a  function  prototype
       declarator causes argument type conversion to stop after the
       last  declared  parameter.   The default argument promotions
       are performed on trailing arguments.

       [#8] No  other  conversions  are  performed  implicitly;

gccint.texi
`PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES'
     A C expression whose value is nonzero if an argument declared in a
     prototype as an integral type smaller than `int' should actually
     be passed as an `int'.  

Does that mean that targets, which #define PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES 1
(almost all) are non iso9899:1999 compliant ?

~velco

Re: PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES nonstandard ?

[Andreas Schwab]

Momchil Velikov <velco@fadata.bg> writes:

|> ISO/IEC 9899:1999 - 6.5.2.2  Function calls
|> 
|>        [#7] If the expression that denotes the called function  has
|>        a  type  that  does  include  a prototype, the arguments are
|>        implicitly converted, as if by assignment, to the  types  of
|>        the  corresponding  parameters,  taking  the  type  of  each
|>        parameter to be the  unqualified  version  of  its  declared
|>        type.    The  ellipsis  notation  in  a  function  prototype
|>        declarator causes argument type conversion to stop after the
|>        last  declared  parameter.   The default argument promotions
|>        are performed on trailing arguments.
|> 
|>        [#8] No  other  conversions  are  performed  implicitly;
|> 
|> gccint.texi
|> `PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES'
|>      A C expression whose value is nonzero if an argument declared in a
|>      prototype as an integral type smaller than `int' should actually
|>      be passed as an `int'.  
|> 
|> Does that mean that targets, which #define PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES 1
|> (almost all) are non iso9899:1999 compliant ?

No, because strictly compliant code cannot tell the difference.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."