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!" |