«

Is the following program standard conform?
(reduced as much as possible so it still shows the problem)

/* begin */
#include <stdio.h>

void xfprintf(FILE *);

void xfprintf(FILE *f) {
fprintf(f, "x\n");
}

int main(void) {
xfprintf(stderr);
return 0;
}
/* end */


It compiles with gcc without warnings and works correctly, but trying
to compile it with a particular other popular compiler, it yields the
following diagnostics:

lc -ansic -A -shadows -unused -O -c xfprintf.c -o xfprintf.obj
Error xfprintf.c: 4 redefinition of 'xfprintf'
Error c:\lcc\include\stdio.h: 116 Previous definition of 'xfprintf' here
2 errors, 0 warnings
1 error
make: *** [xfprintf.obj] Error 1

Who is at fault here, my program or the compiler?

On Jan 21, 3:13 am, Fumeur <f...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Is the following program standard conform?
> (reduced as much as possible so it still shows the problem)
>
> /* begin */
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> void xfprintf(FILE *);
>
> void xfprintf(FILE *f) {
> fprintf(f, "x\n");
>
> }
>
> int main(void) {
> xfprintf(stderr);
> return 0;}
>
> /* end */
>
> It compiles with gcc without warnings and works correctly, but trying
> to compile it with a particular other popular compiler, it yields the
> following diagnostics:
>
> lc -ansic -A -shadows -unused -O -c xfprintf.c -o xfprintf.obj
> Error xfprintf.c: 4 redefinition of 'xfprintf'
> Error c:\lcc\include\stdio.h: 116 Previous definition of 'xfprintf' here
> 2 errors, 0 warnings
> 1 error
> make: *** [xfprintf.obj] Error 1
>
> Who is at fault here, my program or the compiler?

int foo(void); is a declaration while int foo(void) { return 42; } is
a definition.
Apparently, xfprintf() is defined twice.
Your snippet is valid ISO C.

In article <>, Fumeur <> wrote:

>lc -ansic -A -shadows -unused -O -c xfprintf.c -o xfprintf.obj
>Error xfprintf.c: 4 redefinition of 'xfprintf'
>Error c:\lcc\include\stdio.h: 116 Previous definition of 'xfprintf' here

Please don't feed the anonymous troll.

-- Richard
--
:wq

Richard Tobin wrote:
> Fumeur <> wrote:
>
>> lc -ansic -A -shadows -unused -O -c xfprintf.c -o xfprintf.obj
>> Error xfprintf.c: 4 redefinition of 'xfprintf'
>> Error c:\lcc\include\stdio.h: 116
>> Previous definition of 'xfprintf' here
>
> Please don't feed the anonymous troll.

Why do you consider Fumeur to be a troll?

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

(Richard Tobin) writes:

> In article <>, Fumeur <> wrote:
>
>>lc -ansic -A -shadows -unused -O -c xfprintf.c -o xfprintf.obj
>>Error xfprintf.c: 4 redefinition of 'xfprintf'
>>Error c:\lcc\include\stdio.h: 116 Previous definition of 'xfprintf' here
>
> Please don't feed the anonymous troll.
>
> -- Richard

But you can?

Fumeur <> wrote:

> lc -ansic -A -shadows -unused -O -c xfprintf.c -o xfprintf.obj
> Error xfprintf.c: 4 redefinition of 'xfprintf'
> Error c:\lcc\include\stdio.h: 116 Previous definition of 'xfprintf' here
> 2 errors, 0 warnings
> 1 error
> make: *** [xfprintf.obj] Error 1

Either you're not calling your implementation correctly, or (in this
case, _highly_ more likely), it is broken. No ISO C implementation is
allowed to declare an identifier called xfprintf in its Standard headers
(which include <stdio.h>); it is in your namespace, not its, and it is
not an existing Standard C function.

Richard

In article <3p8e65->,
Richard <> wrote:
> (Richard Tobin) writes:
>
>> In article <>, Fumeur <> wrote:
>>
>>>lc -ansic -A -shadows -unused -O -c xfprintf.c -o xfprintf.obj
>>>Error xfprintf.c: 4 redefinition of 'xfprintf'
>>>Error c:\lcc\include\stdio.h: 116 Previous definition of 'xfprintf' here
>>
>> Please don't feed the anonymous troll.
>>
>> -- Richard
>
>But you can?

Ssssh. You're using logic. Stop that. They don't like it.

Fumeur wrote:
> Is the following program standard conform?
> (reduced as much as possible so it still shows the problem)
>
> /* begin */
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> void xfprintf(FILE *);
>
> void xfprintf(FILE *f) {
> fprintf(f, "x\n");
> }
>
> int main(void) {
> xfprintf(stderr);
> return 0;
> }
> /* end */
>
>
> It compiles with gcc without warnings and works correctly, but trying
> to compile it with a particular other popular compiler, it yields the
> following diagnostics:
>
> lc -ansic -A -shadows -unused -O -c xfprintf.c -o xfprintf.obj
> Error xfprintf.c: 4 redefinition of 'xfprintf'
> Error c:\lcc\include\stdio.h: 116 Previous definition of 'xfprintf' here
> 2 errors, 0 warnings
> 1 error
> make: *** [xfprintf.obj] Error 1
>
> Who is at fault here, my program or the compiler?
>

You are using a bad bad compiler. This is unacceptable!

I would ask

1) For a full refund of the money you spent.

*After* you get the money

2) Ask Ossama bin laden to kill that infidel to the principles
and spirit of C.




--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia wrote:

> I would ask

> 2) Ask Ossama bin laden to kill that infidel to the principles
> and spirit of C.


I've found a simpler approach. Jacob goes into the killfile.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:10:47 GMT, Richard Bos wrote:

>Fumeur <> wrote:
>
>> lc -ansic -A -shadows -unused -O -c xfprintf.c -o xfprintf.obj
>> Error xfprintf.c: 4 redefinition of 'xfprintf'
>> Error c:\lcc\include\stdio.h: 116 Previous definition of 'xfprintf' here
>> 2 errors, 0 warnings
>> 1 error
>> make: *** [xfprintf.obj] Error 1
>
>Either you're not calling your implementation correctly, or (in this
>case, _highly_ more likely), it is broken. No ISO C implementation is
>allowed to declare an identifier called xfprintf in its Standard headers
>(which include <stdio.h>); it is in your namespace, not its, and it is
>not an existing Standard C function.

Thanks, that's what I thought. I had a look at the standard myself and
didn't find any reference to xfprintf(), but that was only C99 and not
any previous versions.

In the compiler/implementation's defense, it does not really "define"
said function at the indicated location, even though the diagnostic may
be misleading; line 116 in its <stdio.h> actually reads

int xfprintf(FILE *,const char *,...);


Would that warrant a bug report (rejects a conforming program)?