Re: questions about gcc options
From: Lowell Gilbert (freebsd-questions-local_at_be-well.ilk.org)
Date: 11/29/05
- Previous message: Kiffin Gish: "sm-mta[386]: My unqualified host name ..."
- In reply to: Mamta BANSAL: "questions about gcc options"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Mamta BANSAL <mamta.bansal@st.com> Date: 29 Nov 2005 08:33:25 -0500
Mamta BANSAL <mamta.bansal@st.com> writes:
> Hello
> for a c code i am using gcc compiler.
> i have doubt using -c option.
> for a c code the code compiles (without error ) with -c option even if
> i don't provide prior declaration of function.
> i mean i have try.c
> //*******************
>
> void my_func( ){
> call_to_undeclared_func( );
> }
> //********************
> i do : gcc -c try.c , it works.
> is it the correct behaviour , i mean should it not ask for atleast
> declearation of call_to_undeclared_func( );
>
> like if my make the same as try.cpp then usen use the same command it
> gives the foll. error.:
>
> try.cpp: In function `void my_func()':
> try.cpp:2: implicit declaration of function `int
> call_to_undeclared_func(...)'
> which i feel is expected behaviour.
That doesn't require a diagnostic in C, but it does in C++.
If you want the diagnostics anyway, use the
-Wimplicit-function-declaration flag to the compiler. Or -Wall, which
adds a pretty extensive set of non-required warnings. See the gcc
manual if you want more information.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Kiffin Gish: "sm-mta[386]: My unqualified host name ..."
- In reply to: Mamta BANSAL: "questions about gcc options"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
