cagney@chook.ua.oz (Andrew Cagney - aka Noid) (11/10/89)
I'm compiling some minix tools using an ansi compiler and hitting compability problems. Specifically in dd.c there is the declaration and call: int over(); ... signal(SIGINT, over); Which in ansi-c, I understand to be invalid as the second parameter to signal should be declared as: void *over(); Minix 1.4a, in several places, uses the symbol VOIDSTAR in an attempt to get arround this incompability. So it would be declared as VOIDSTAR over(); And when compiling under ansi-c you would define VOIDSTAR=void* etc Is this going to become the accepted way of doing these declarations or will some other method be adopted? Andrew Cagney
cagney@chook.ua.oz (Andrew Cagney - aka Noid,285,5585,3362395) (11/10/89)
From article <647@augean.OZ>, by cagney@chook.ua.oz (Andrew Cagney - aka Noid):
> void *over();
I should have written
void over();
and be refering to void. Regardless the basic question holds. Sorry.
Andrew Cagney
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (11/11/89)
In article <647@augean.OZ> cagney@chook.ua.oz (Andrew Cagney - aka Noid) writes: >Is this going to become the accepted way of doing these declarations or >will some other method be adopted? I haven't really decided. In any case, the MINIX compiler fully accepts void, so I won't fudge VOIDSTAR. I will try to get the MINIX 1.4b headers fully ANSI/POSIX conformant, which should reduce problems of the type you mention. Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)