pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> Hmm, I think this causes the following invalid code to be accepted (but I am
> not sure if this is invalid code or not):
> enum in_section { in_toc };
> int f(void) { extern int in_toc; }
>
> ----------
> In 3.3 and before we got:
> t1.c: In function `f':
> t1.c:1: error: `in_toc' redeclared as different kind of symbol
> t1.c:1: error: previous declaration of `in_toc'
I believe this should be accepted. Either way in_toc is not
redeclared, there is only one declaration at block scope and that
hides the outer declaration.
More serious is the fact that a missing return statement is
apparently not diagnosed?
