jeffb@grace.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Bowden) (02/11/89)
The subject says it all. Cfront 1.1 rejects it as being a syntax error. Gcc g++ and pcc all think it's just peachy. Any suggestions on how to make CC happy (i.e. alternative declarations that mean the same thing)?
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (02/11/89)
C++ generally does not allow extra parentheses in declarations. Since [] binds more tightly than unaries, typedef int *(il[8][8]); is equivalent to typedef int *il[8][8]; which I expect your cfront will accept. -- --Andrew Koenig ark@europa.att.com
maung@elbereth.rutgers.edu (tin maung) (02/14/89)
<8901@alice.UUCP> gives
> typedef int *il[8][8];
as a substitute for
typedef int *(il[8][8]);
That should work here.
But if you can't remember a precedence rule,
or if the situation is tougher, you might try the
following approach:
typedef int *intptr;
typedef intptr il[8][8];
It's messy, but it works.
--------------------------------
Barry Schwartz (...!rutgers!cdspr!bbs), thanks to Tin Maung