Re: [Tinycc-devel] pointers to static functions inside a static table

[Aharon Robbins]

Hi. Thanks for the note.

> From: "Thomas Preud'homme" <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] pointers to static functions inside a static table
> Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 22:57:55 +0200
> Cc: Aharon Robbins <address@hidden>
>
> Le vendredi 27 ao?t 2010 12:47:35, Aharon Robbins a ?crit :
> > Hi. I've reported this before, but here is a small test case:
> > 
> > $ cat foo.c
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > 
> > static void func();
> > 
> > int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > {
> >     static struct s {
> >             void (*elem)();
> >     } t[] = {
> >             { func }        /* tcc requires these braces! */
> >     };
> > 
> >     printf("func is %p, t[0].func is %p\n", func, t[0].elem);
> >     return 0;
> > }
> > 
> > static void func()
> > {
> >     int x = 1;
> >     x++;
> > }
> > 
> > $ gcc foo.c ; ./a.out
> > func is 0x4004f8, t[0].func is 0x4004f8
> > $ tcc foo.c ; ./a.out
> > func is 0x8048314, t[0].func is (nil)
>
> A bit late for a correct answer but in fact these parenthesis *are* needed. 
> There is one set of parenthesis for the array initialization and then one for 
> the structure. Gcc with -Wall gives a warning now (since version 4.6).
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas

I think this is sad - it breaks backwards compatibility with C all the way
back to V7.

I'll agree that supplying the braces is better programming style, but
in the case above it really shoudn't be necessary.

Thanks,

Arnold