From: Sam Roberts <sroberts@...>
Date: 2006-04-27T04:33:12+09:00
Subject: Re: possible defect in array.c

On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:15:24AM +0900, Pat Eyler wrote:
> On 4/26/06, Jacob Fugal <lukfugl@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/26/06, Pat Eyler <rubypate@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > good idea:
> > >
> > > *** array.c     12 Dec 2005 16:46:59 -0000      1.186
> > > --- array.c     26 Apr 2006 15:27:05 -0000
> > > ***************
> > > *** 2100,2105 ****
> > > --- 2100,2106 ----
> > >   {
> > >       VALUE item, arg1, arg2;
> > >       long beg, end, len;
> > > +     beg = 0;
> > >       VALUE *p, *pend;
> > >       int block_p = Qfalse;
> >
> > Actually, that'd be a syntax error in C. All variable declarations in
> > C must precede all other statements.
> 
> More proof that I'm not a C hacker.  I did compile after making the
> change and didn't see any errors from gcc:

By default, gcc implements an extended C dialect. It supports many
things that are not standard C. It lists these extensions in its docs.

sroberts@pebble:/tmp% gcc -c -pedantic __.c
__.c: In function ���foo���:
__.c:6: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code
sroberts@pebble:/tmp% cat __.c

int foo(void)
{
	int a;
	a = 0;
	int b;

	return a + b;
}