Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!grr From: grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix Subject: Re: Fun with void under Ultrix Message-ID: <7712@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: 19 Aug 89 19:28:03 GMT References: <89Aug17.222844edt.30797@snow.white.toronto.edu> Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA Lines: 19 In article <89Aug17.222844edt.30797@snow.white.toronto.edu> cks@white.toronto.edu (Chris Siebenmann) writes: > > I wouldn't mind cc not supporting void, but I get a tad bit annoyed > when it drops void declarations into the bitbucket without telling > anyone. I guess I'll just tell people to use gcc. I think this is a result of the Ultrix cc dating from the period when void had been added with the meaning of "ignore the return of this function" or "this function doesn't return anything". The added notion of a pointer to void being a universal pointer and other niggling details came later. Of couse DEC should upgrade their compiler to support such new wave notions, or do they expect to use vcc in place of the default compiler? You did file an SPR, right? -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@uunet.uu.net Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)