Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:43:01 -0600 From: Lucas Bergman <lucas@fivesight.com> To: Cliff Sarginson <cliff@raggedclown.net> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Question Message-ID: <15326.62645.612462.858576@apu.five.sight> In-Reply-To: <20011030192546.B1191@raggedclown.net> References: <3BDE7140.E1DA5ABB@in.ceeyes.com> <3BDEC1EE.672DCC9@bigstudios.com> <15326.53671.687708.44817@apu.five.sight> <20011030175306.A6302@raggedclown.net> <15326.58577.644116.716803@apu.five.sight> <20011030192546.B1191@raggedclown.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Cliff Sarginson wrote: > Lucas Bergman wrote: > > Cliff Sarginson wrote: > > > Mmm, close, but not quite a cigar. The undefined reference > > > could be because of a missing macro definition, which may be > > > included in an include file. > > > > I believe as long as you're using a C compiler that you would > > probably get a diagnostic, but not an error, since having > > functions undeclared and unprototyped is perfectly legal C, if > > arguably bad style. > > The point is that the complaint from "ld" is caused by an undefined > reference, without a prototype the compiler could not care less, the > assumption being that the reference will be fixed up in ld with > whatever libraries or other object files linked in. Ah. I thought you meant that the compiler would complain. You are, of course, correct. Lucas To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15326.62645.612462.858576>