Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 08:52:41 +0000
Ian Collins said:
Harald van D?k wrote:
My C compiler gave several screens of errors and warning before giving up.
c.c: In function ?main?:
c.c:17: error: type defaults to ?int? in declaration of ?i?
c.c:20: error: expected ?,? or ?;? before ?)? token
c.c:64: error: implicit declaration of function ?toupper?
c.c:69: error: implicit declaration of function ?tolower?
That's compiling as C, not as C++.
Try it again, fixing the trivial error on line 20 (for which I apologise).
Any errors you get then will be either because you have managed to dig up a
C99 compiler from somewhere (and I don't claim that the program is valid
C99), or because your compiler is simply issuing diagnostics for the sake
of it. Modulo the linesplice accident, the program is, as far as I'm aware,
a legal C90 program.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Ian Collins
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Harald van Dijk
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- References:
- Simplicity has a future
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Harald van Dijk
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Ian Collins
- Simplicity has a future
- Prev by Date: Re: output from program - why?
- Next by Date: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Previous by thread: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Next by thread: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|