Subject: Re: Why is using "inline" as a variable name a parse error for our compiler?
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 07/28/1995 11:22:08
> IMNSHO, ANSI-C should never have taken on the type-coercion feature
> of prototypes. This is definitely a new invention,
I thought it was taken from C++? Not that that's really relevant to
the current discussion.
> and as we're seeing, one that causes portability problems --
Any change was bound to cause portability problems.
> Note that proper lint checking *cannot* be done without either
> including every header with prototypes in every module, [...or else
> keeping lint-like pseudo-prototypes around...].
Right. Which is why I advocate -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes, to ensure that you've _got_ all those header
files. (You actually don't need _every_ header, just those with the
prototypes for the routines defined and/or called.)