On Thu, 14 Aug 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > And I'm proposing it as a GNU extension, which means we don't even need > to care about what ISO C says about [n]. We, as a quality > implementation, treat it with stronger semantics, which this patch uses.
As a GNU extension, it's also necessary to define semantics in the presence of parameter forward declarations. > > (And as noted on the > > reflector, it would seem desirable to get to a conclusion on revisions of > > N2906 and N3605 before considering such a proposal, rather than chaining > > new proposals on other proposals still needing significant work.) > > Those would affect a future implicit deduction of the array length with > default arguments. That would need to be careful about composite type, > because the caller sees the composite type. However, the function > declarator doesn't care about other compatible declarators. It should > not affect this feature. N3605 is definitely relevant even with a single declaration and no composite types, because it may determine what's valid regarding the parameter name in parentheses or returned by _Generic. -- Joseph S. Myers josmy...@redhat.com
