This issue has been automatically converted from the original issue lists and some formatting may not have been preserved.
Authors: Ron Guilmette, WG14
Date: 1993-12-03
Submitted against: C90
Status: Closed
Cross-references: 0084
Converted from: dr.htm, dr_104.html
ANSI/ISO C Defect report #rfg11:
According to subclause 6.5:
If an identifier for an object is declared with no linkage, the type for the object shall be complete by the end of its declarator, or by the end of its init-declarator if it has an initializer.
It would appear that the above rule effectly renders the following code not strictly conforming (because this code violates the above rule):
typedef struct incomplete_S ST;
typedef union incomplete_U UT;
void example1(ST arg); /* diagnostic permitted/encouraged? */
void example2(UT arg); /* diagnostic permitted/encouraged? */
I have noted however that many/most/all “conforming” implementations do in fact accept code such as that shown above (without producing any diagnostics).
Is it the intention of the Committee that code such as that shown above should be considered to be strictly conforming? If so, then some change to the wording now present in subclause 6.5 is in order (to allow for such cases).
Comment from WG14 on 1997-09-23:
See Defect Report #084.