Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:33:31PM +0100, kevin lyda wrote:
>>>>i should point out that the ;; is the problem, but that it will not fail
>>to compile/run on rh7.3 if the ;; were on these statements:
>>>>>>That's because you define a variable after what is effectively a
>statement on the first line. All variable declaration have to come
>at the start of a block, so when you have int i;; you have;
>> int i;
> /* empty statment */ ;
> char *s;
>>But you can't define a variable after a statement. In the below
>examples ...
>>>>> char *s = "hello world\n";;
>>>>or
>>>> printf("%d %s", i, s);;
>>>>>>>it makes no difference, because statements can always come after
>statements :) It's just an inconsistency in that one compiler
>considers ;; just ignorable, and the other (more properly imo)
>considers it an empty statement.
>>>well, an inconsitency, in that one implements a new C standard.
L.
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
