On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Mike Stump wrote:
> Here are just a few more issues I was wondering about for VLAs:
>
> static int i;
> static int new_i() { i++; return i; }
> static int bar(int a[new_i()][new_i()]);
Same as static int bar(int a[*][*]);. (In a definition, the two calls to
new_i() happen in an unspecified order, but do not overlap and there is a
sequence point between them, namely that at the end of the first call of
new_i(). Both calls happen even though one array dimension disappears in
the array-to-pointer parameter adjustment; GCC correctly handles
side-effects in array dimensions lost by this adjustment and there's at
least one old test in the testsuite to that effect.)
> void foo(int n) {
> /* Presently an error, but, should it be (due to bar having a VM type and bar
> having other than no linkage)? */
> extern int bar(int a[new_i()][new_i()]);
> /* Same question. */
> extern void foo2(int i[n][n]);
I don't think it can be intended that functions with VM arguments
themselves have VM type (otherwise you'd have problems declaring them at
all since they don't have no linkage and may have file scope). But the
definition in terms of contained declarators hardly makes things clear. I
would say, however, that while VM-ness shouldn't propagate out from
function argument types to the type of the function, it should so
propagate from the function return type to the type of the function.
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal mail)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (CodeSourcery mail)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
