gcc bug (possibly)

[Doug Schmidt]

In article <9201 at orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> budd at mist.cs.orst.edu (Tim Budd) writes:
++ Unless I am seriously mistaken in my understanding of prototypes, our version 
++ of gcc produces an error in what I believe is a correct program.  
++ Try the following:
++ 
++ extern int foo ( short );
++ 
++ int foo(x)
++ short x;
++ { ; }
++ 
++ I get a message that the argument doesn't match the prototype.
++ Works fine if I use int in place of short.
++ 
++ Anybody know if this has been fixed?

Since this ``bug'' in gcc is reported about once every 3 weeks let me
post the relevant section from the gcc.texinfo manual:

----------------------------------------
@item
Users often think it is a bug when GNU CC reports an error for code
like this:

@example
int foo (short);

int foo (x)
     short x;
@{@dots{}@}
@end example

The error message is correct: this code really is erroneous, because the
old-style non-prototype definition passes subword integers in their
promoted types.  In other words, the argument is really an @code{int},
not a @code{short}.  The correct prototype is this:

@example
int foo (int);
@end example
----------------------------------------

If you don't agree with the gcc interpretation of ANSI proto-types,
please post a message to bug-gcc at prep.ai.mit.edu with a quote from the
latest version of the dpANS standard to substantiate your claim.

thanks,

   Doug Schmidt        
--
schmidt at ics.uci.edu (ARPA) |   Per me si va nella citta' dolente.
office: (714) 856-4043     |   Per me si va nell'eterno dolore.
                           |   Per me si va tra la perduta gente.
                           |   Lasciate ogni speranza o voi ch'entrate.