Peter Seebach wrote:

>         int foo(s)
>                 short s;
>         {
>         }
> declares foo to take an *int* argument, for purposes of the rest
> of the code.
> 
> If, elsewhere, you say
>         int foo(short);
> you are allowed to be using different calling conventions.

  You have to use

  int foo(int);

  of course, as an (ANSI) prototype for the rest of the code (and that's
how it ought to be done with the current coding style [with the
appropriate __P() around it]).

  But as Chris pointed out, this is very error-prone, specifically for
types like xyz_t (that might even expand to different base types on
different architectures ;-)

  Cheers
      ,
   Rene