https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67386
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67386
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> My reading was that the implicit declaration is intended to be in effect only
> for the call to the otherwise undeclared function, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67386
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
>From Doug Gwyn's response on the WG14 list about the C90 wording with respect
to the placement of the implicit declaration (quoted below) it seems that even
though diagnosing line 11 in f2() in comment #2 goe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67386
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks. I think I may have misinterpreted the C90 rules that describe implicit
function declarations. The C90 text says:
If the expression that precedes the parenthesized argument list in a function
call co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67386
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> GCC isn't completely consistent in diagnosing references to undeclared
> functions. In the test case below, it issues an error for on
