Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>