gcc原型怪异 [英] gcc prototype oddity
问题描述
Thomas Heinz写道（在这个错误的
计划的gcc汇编中）：
$ cat test.c
int f（int）;
int f（）;
int f（）{return 0;}
int main（void）{return 0; }
唯一的问题仍然是关于程序的错误陈述......这是：
test.c：在函数中？ f？：
test.c：3：错误：参数数量与原型不匹配
test.c：2：错误：原型声明
这里，它会如果原型声明（
错误声明的第3行）引用最严格的声明（在
示例第1行中），那就太好了。
有趣的是：这条消息确实有误，因为第2行和第3行之间没有
不一致，只有1到3之间。
我'' m cc''ing comp.lang.c.
Allin Cottrell。
cat test。 c
int f（int）;
int f（）;
int f（）{return 0;}
int main（void）{return 0; }
唯一的问题仍然是关于程序的错误陈述......这是：
test.c：在函数中？ f？：
test.c：3：错误：参数数量与原型不匹配
test.c：2：错误：原型声明
这里，它会如果原型声明（
错误声明的第3行）引用最严格的声明（在
示例第1行中），那就太好了。
有趣的是：这条消息确实有误，因为第2行和第3行之间没有
不一致，只有1到3之间。
我'' m cc''ing comp.lang.c.
Allin Cottrell。
Allin Cottrell写道：
< blockquote class =post_quotes> Thomas Heinz写道：
cat test.c
1 int f（int）;
2 int f（）;
3 int f（）{return 0; }
4
5 int main（void）{return 0; }
唯一的问题仍然是关于程序的错误陈述......这是：
test.c：在函数中？ f？：
test.c：3：错误：参数数量与原型不匹配
test.c：2：错误：原型声明
这里，它会如果原型声明（第3行的错误声明）引用最严格的声明（在示例第1行中），那就太好了。
有趣的是：该消息确实有误，
因为第2行和第3行之间没有不一致，只有1到3之间。
不，消息是正确的。
声明
int f（）;
重新声明
int f（int）;
和编译器可以告诉的一样。
cat main.c
int f（）;
int f（int）;
int f（）{return 0; }
int main（void）{return 0; }
gcc -Wall -std = c99 -pedantic -o main main.c
main.c：在函数`f''：
main.c：3：错误：参数数量与原型不匹配
main.c：2：错误：原型声明
编译器是*不*千里眼。
它不知道我做什么*打算*写。
由于类型声明符出现在声明中
int f（int）;
错误可能是声明
int f（无效）;
的目的是你写的地方
int f（）;
在这种情况下你也应该写好
int f（void）{return 0; }
Thomas Heinz wrote (in re. gcc compilation of this erroneous
program):
$ cat test.c
int f(int);
int f();
int f() {return 0;}
int main (void) { return 0; }
The only point which remains concerns the error statement for
the program ... which is:
test.c: In function ?f?:
test.c:3: error: number of arguments doesn''t match prototype
test.c:2: error: prototype declaration
Here, it would be nice if the prototype declaration (3rd line of
error statement) refers to the strictest declaration (in the
example line 1).
Interesting: that message does seem wrong, since there''s no
inconsistency between lines 2 and 3, only between 1 and 3.
I''m cc''ing comp.lang.c.
Allin Cottrell.
cat test.c
int f(int);
int f();
int f() {return 0;}
int main (void) { return 0; }
The only point which remains concerns the error statement for
the program ... which is:
test.c: In function ?f?:
test.c:3: error: number of arguments doesn''t match prototype
test.c:2: error: prototype declaration
Here, it would be nice if the prototype declaration (3rd line of
error statement) refers to the strictest declaration (in the
example line 1).
Interesting: that message does seem wrong, since there''s no
inconsistency between lines 2 and 3, only between 1 and 3.
I''m cc''ing comp.lang.c.
Allin Cottrell.
Allin Cottrell wrote:
Thomas Heinz wrote:
cat test.c
1 int f(int);
2 int f();
3 int f() { return 0; }
4
5 int main(void) { return 0; }The only point which remains concerns the error statement for
the program ... which is:
test.c: In function ?f?:
test.c:3: error: number of arguments doesn''t match prototype
test.c:2: error: prototype declaration
Here, it would be nice if the prototype declaration
(3rd line of error statement) refers to
the strictest declaration (in the example line 1).
Interesting: that message does seem wrong,
since there''s no inconsistency
between lines 2 and 3, only between 1 and 3.
No, the message is correct.
The declaration
int f();
is a redeclaration of
int f(int);
and far as the compiler can tell.
cat main.c int f();
int f(int);
int f() { return 0; }
int main(void) { return 0; }
gcc -Wall -std=c99 -pedantic -o main main.c
main.c: In function `f'':
main.c:3: error: number of arguments doesn''t match prototype
main.c:2: error: prototype declaration
The compiler is *not* clairvoyant.
It does not know any more than I do what you *intended* to write.
Since the type specifier appears in the declaration
int f(int);
the mistake may be that the declaration
int f(void);
was intended where you wrote
int f();
in which case you should also have written
int f(void) { return 0; }
这篇关于gcc原型怪异的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
