Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:57:34 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Subject: Re: svn commit: r194681 - head/usr.sbin/wpa/ndis_events Message-ID: <20090701234518.E2035@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20090701152300.N96900@mp2.macomnet.net> References: <200906230555.n5N5tubJ065618@svn.freebsd.org> <20090623080015.GK48776@hoeg.nl> <20090623125125.F1156@mp2.macomnet.net> <86ljn923dw.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20090701152300.N96900@mp2.macomnet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, 16:38+0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
>
>> Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru> writes:
>>> fixed, thanks.
>>
>> It still says
>>
>> static void
>> usage()
>>
>> I know this is allowed by C99, but it's not allowed by style(9).
>>
> From style(9):
>
> static void
> usage()
> {
> /* Insert an empty line if the function has no local variables. */
> ...
>
> Apart from the empty line, what's wrong?
style(9) hasn't been converted to its own religion yet :-). This isn't
exactly a bug, since an old-style Standard C function definition is
still Normal for usage(). Normal file order is a prototype for usage(),
then main() calling usage(), then usage(), so a separate prototype for
usage() is Normal. Then usage an old-style definition for usage() breaks
K&R support without affecting Standard C support.
Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090701234518.E2035>