iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) (09/09/88)
Sorry to have to post this, it's a fairly trivial question I know, but I
don't have a copy of the proposed ANSI spec.
Put simply, does the upcoming standard intend to enforce (or warn about)
mixing 'typedef'-ed types even if the fundamental items 'beneath' the typedefs
are the same?
Specifically, if you have the following:
void fred(long *);
typedef long funny_t;
main()
{
funny_t a;
fred(&a);
....
}
..will the compilers barf, or produce a warning or what?
Obviously, the code itself is perfectly runnable, and portable, as long as
the typedef of 'funny' continues to be a 'long'.
I'd like to see a warning here - am I alone?
Am I going to be dissapointed?
Thanks in advance.
Please E-mail, I'll summarise.
-----------------------------------------------+------------------------------
Steve Hosgood BSc, | Phone (+44) 792 295213
Image Processing and Systems Engineer, | Fax (+44) 792 295532
Institute for Industrial Information Techology,| Telex 48149
Innovation Centre, University of Wales, +------+ JANET: iiit-sh@uk.ac.swan.pyr
Swansea SA2 8PP | UUCP: ..!ukc!cybaswan.UUCP!iiit-sh
----------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
My views are not necessarily those of my employers!scjones@sdrc.UUCP (Larry Jones) (09/16/88)
In article <74@cybaswan.UUCP>, iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes: > Put simply, does the upcoming standard intend to enforce (or warn about) > mixing 'typedef'-ed types even if the fundamental items 'beneath' the typedefs > are the same? No, the draft maintains the K&R interpretation that typedef does not create a new type, merely a different way to specify an existing type. Warnings are not considered to be in the scope of a standard - if you'd like one, bother your compiler vendor enough to convince them to add it. ---- Larry Jones UUCP: uunet!sdrc!scjones SDRC scjones@sdrc.uucp 2000 Eastman Dr. BIX: ltl Milford, OH 45150 AT&T: (513) 576-2070 "Save the Quayles" - Mark Russell