On Jun 16, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
static int bar(int a[new_i()][new_i()]);
If that isn't a sequence point violation, it probably ought to be,
shouldn't
it?
No, the text has no meaning (in this case (non (const int))), read it
as `'*' and you'll have a better mental model for
Ok, good, you gave the same answers I was hoping for. :-)
On Jun 16, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
But the definition in terms of contained declarators hardly makes
things clear. I would say, however, that while VM-ness shouldn't
propagate out from function argument types to the
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Mike Stump wrote:
> Here are just a few more issues I was wondering about for VLAs:
>
> static int i;
> static int new_i() { i++; return i; }
> static int bar(int a[new_i()][new_i()]);
Same as static int bar(int a[*][*]);. (In a definition, the two calls to
new_i() happen
On 16 June 2006 02:02, Mike Stump wrote:
> Here are just a few more issues I was wondering about for VLAs:
>
> static int i;
> static int new_i() { i++; return i; }
> static int bar(int a[new_i()][new_i()]);
If that isn't a sequence point violation, it probably ought to be, shouldn't
it?
Here are just a few more issues I was wondering about for VLAs:
static int i;
static int new_i() { i++; return i; }
static int bar(int a[new_i()][new_i()]);
void foo(int n) {
/* Presently an error, but, should it be (due to bar having a VM
type and bar having other than no linkage)? */
ex
