Re: [Groff] Re: groff 1.19.1 compilation with xlC och AIX

[Werner LEMBERG]

[I took the liberty to CC your mail to the groff list.]

> > Hmm.  I've removed them because I got warnings from the GNU C++
> > compiler.  For both g++ 3.0.1 and 2.95.3, a `friend' declaration
> > is sufficient.  Code like this:
> > 
> >   void end_diversions();
> > 
> >   class diversion {
> >     friend void do_divert(int append, int boxing);
> >     friend void end_diversions();
> > 
> > produces a warning about declaring `end_diversions' twice.  Is
> > somebody on the list who knows the C++ standard well enough to decide
> > whether this is a feature of g++ or whether this really conforms to
> > ANSI C++?
> 
> I don't know the 'friends' part well enough and I'm too lazy to
> check, but for what it's worth I see no problems in 2.95.4 (with
> Debian patches I suppose) and 3.4.0 (vanilla gcc):
> 
> | frailea:/tmp> gcc --version
> | 2.95.4
> | frailea:/tmp> /opt/gcc-3.4/bin/g++ --version
> | g++ (GCC) 3.4.0
> | Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> | This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
> | warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> | 
> | frailea:/tmp> cat foo.cc 
> |   void end_diversions();
> | 
> |   class diversion {
> |     friend void do_divert(int append, int boxing);
> |     friend void end_diversions();
> |   };
> | frailea:/tmp> /opt/gcc-3.4/bin/g++ -Wall -ansi -pedantic -c foo.cc
> | frailea:/tmp> g++ -Wall -ansi -pedantic -c foo.cc
> | frailea:/tmp> 

Thanks for testing.  Just curious: If you omit the first prototype, do
you get a warning?  What about -Wstrict-prototypes?

BTW, I no longer can reproduce the warnings on my platform, so I'll
apply the sent patches.

Anyway, there is still the question whether gcc's behaviour is
compliant with ANSI C++...  Whom could I ask?


    Werner