*BSD News Article 21999


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!olivea!pagesat!news.cerf.net!crash!fredbox!cyb!loodvrij
From: loodvrij@cyb.fred.com (Bruce 'Loodvrij' Keeler)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.apps
Subject: Re: NetBSD vs FreeBSD binary compatability
Message-ID: <CEGHIG.4rv@cyb.fred.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 03:25:13 GMT
References: <hastyCDzEwM.384@netcom.com> <hastyCDzwJp.9D5@netcom.com> <JKH.93Oct5040830@whisker.lotus.ie>
Organization: Cacophonous Yodellers' Box (907) 338-4942
Lines: 32

In article <JKH.93Oct5040830@whisker.lotus.ie> jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
>related analogy, it's still sort of like saying "the following is
>correct C:"
>
>		foo(a, b)
>		{
>			a = 10;
>			return 5;
>		}
>
>Well, sure, in K&R C is was OK to not declare function return values
>or arguments that defaulted to int, but it's still BAD C, and any
>reasonable ANSI compiler will spit at it.

Hmmmmmm.......

loodvrij|/tmp (8) > cat > foo.c

foo(a, b)
{
        a = 10;
        return 5;
}
loodvrij|/tmp (9) > gcc -c foo.c
loodvrij|/tmp (10) > 

Nope.  You don't have to declare 'em if they're int's.  Not even in ANSI.

Just nit-picking.
-- 
Bruce J. Keeler (907) 337-8193              | "...and Bruce is in charge    |
Internet: loodvrij@cyb.fred.com             |        of the sheep dip!"     |