draves@harvard.ARPA (Richard Draves) (03/10/85)
I just discovered that our C compiler (4.2 cc) does not allow void to be typedef'ed; furthermore, it gives an error message that I haven't otherwise seen. This suggests that this is its intended behaviour, and not another void bug. Is there any reason to disallow new names for void? Is this a bug or a feature? Rich -- "a picture in the head is a gory murder in an art gallery" -- Stephen Kosslyn
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (03/12/85)
> I just discovered that our C compiler (4.2 cc) does not allow > void to be typedef'ed; furthermore, it gives an error message > that I haven't otherwise seen. This suggests that this is its > intended behaviour, and not another void bug. > > Is there any reason to disallow new names for void? Is this > a bug or a feature? > Doesn't surprise me. Void seems to be a second class citizen in the 4.2 compiler, kinda hacked in. You can't declare pointers to functions returning void. -Ron