Hello,
Unlike in pre-C99 versions of C where variables can only be defined at the
beginning of blocks, C99 allows variables to be defined in arbitrary
places inside blocks. However, gcc 3.2.2 seems to reveal that there
are still places where this is illegal. For instance, consider the
following code snippet.
int main(void) {
int i = 0;
switch (i) {
case 0:
char ch;
break;
}
}
Here the compiler complains with the error:
hello.c: In function `main':
hello.c:6: parse error before "char"
It seems like declaring a variable inside a switch statement is illegal.
Anyone know why this is the case. After all, the following compiles fine
with gcc 3.2.2:
int main(void) {
int i = 0;
switch (i) {
case 0: {
char ch;
break;
}
}
}
The only difference is the introduction of the block within the C
statement. Anyone know of similar cases where it is illegal to declare
variable in places where we would expect it to be legal in C99? Also,
can anyone explain the reason for the compiler complaint?
Thanks,
Neil
5  10111 
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:13:06 -0330, Neil Zanella wrote: Unlike in pre-C99 versions of C where variables can only be defined at the
beginning of blocks, C99 allows variables to be defined in arbitrary
places inside blocks. However, gcc 3.2.2 seems to reveal that there
are still places where this is illegal. For instance, consider the
following code snippet.
You can't count on conformance of current versions of GCC
to the C99 standard. With that out of the way I'll continue.
int main(void) {
int i = 0;
switch (i) {
case 0:
char ch;
break;
}
}
Here the compiler complains with the error:
hello.c: In function `main':
hello.c:6: parse error before "char"
can anyone explain the reason for the compiler complaint?
The answer is in the C99 grammar. Declarations can appear at
any place within a block because of these productions:
A.2.3 Statements
(6.8.2) compound-statement: { block-item-list? }
(6.8.2) block-item-list: block-item
block-item-list block-item
(6.8.2) block-item: declaration
statement
But you can't put a declaration after a case construct because
of these productions:
A.2.3 Statements
(6.8) statement: labeled-statement
(6.8.1) labeled-statement: case constant-expression : statement
IOW, only a statement can follow a case.
-Sheldon
In article
<Pi*************************************@garfield. cs.mun.ca>,
Neil Zanella <nz******@cs.mun.ca> wrote: Hello,
Unlike in pre-C99 versions of C where variables can only be defined at the
beginning of blocks, C99 allows variables to be defined in arbitrary
places inside blocks. However, gcc 3.2.2 seems to reveal that there
are still places where this is illegal. For instance, consider the
following code snippet.
int main(void) {
int i = 0;
switch (i) {
case 0:
char ch;
break;
}
}
Here the compiler complains with the error:
hello.c: In function `main':
hello.c:6: parse error before "char"
It seems like declaring a variable inside a switch statement is illegal.
Anyone know why this is the case. After all, the following compiles fine
with gcc 3.2.2:
No, declaring a variable inside a switch statement is not illegal.
However, the syntax is slightly different then you think it is: When you
write
switch (i) {
<body of switch statement>
}
the body of the switch statement can contain the following in any order:
Unlabeled statements
Labeled statements
Declarations
case 0: char ch;
would be a labeled declaration, and they are not allowed. Write
case 0: ;
char ch;
break;
instead.
Hello,
Quite interesting. I wonder whether adding a rule to the C99 grammar for
accepting declarations following labeled statements would cause the
resulting grammar to be ambiguous (I doubt it), or whether there
would be some shift/reduce, reduce/shift, reduce/reduce conflicts
of some sort (more likely). How would such conflicts arise in
such a situation?
Thanks,
Neil
Sheldon Simms <sh**********@yahoo.com> wrote: The answer is in the C99 grammar. Declarations can appear at
any place within a block because of these productions:
A.2.3 Statements
(6.8.2) compound-statement: { block-item-list? }
(6.8.2) block-item-list: block-item
block-item-list block-item
(6.8.2) block-item: declaration
statement
But you can't put a declaration after a case construct because
of these productions:
A.2.3 Statements
(6.8) statement: labeled-statement
(6.8.1) labeled-statement: case constant-expression : statement
IOW, only a statement can follow a case.
-Sheldon
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:13:06 -0330, Neil Zanella wrote:
int main(void) {
int i = 0;
switch (i) {
case 0:
char ch;
break;
}
}
top-posting corrected
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:00:59 -0800, Neil Zanella wrote:
Sheldon Simms <sh**********@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:13:06 -0330, Neil Zanella wrote:
> int main(void) {
> int i = 0;
> switch (i) {
> case 0:
> char ch;
> break;
> }
> }
The answer is in the C99 grammar. Declarations can appear at
any place within a block because of these productions:
A.2.3 Statements
(6.8.2) compound-statement: { block-item-list? }
(6.8.2) block-item-list: block-item
block-item-list block-item
(6.8.2) block-item: declaration
statement
But you can't put a declaration after a case construct because
of these productions:
A.2.3 Statements
(6.8) statement: labeled-statement
(6.8.1) labeled-statement: case constant-expression : statement
IOW, only a statement can follow a case.
-Sheldon
Quite interesting. I wonder whether adding a rule to the C99 grammar for
accepting declarations following labeled statements would cause the
resulting grammar to be ambiguous (I doubt it), or whether there
would be some shift/reduce, reduce/shift, reduce/reduce conflicts
of some sort (more likely). How would such conflicts arise in
such a situation?
I don't know if the C standards committee worries too much about
those kinds of problems when writing the grammar. I wouldn't in any
case. The grammer in the standard isn't supposed to be directly
usable in bison.
FWIW C++ *does* allow declarations after case and other labels with
these productions:
ISO/IEC 14882:1998(E)
A.5
statement: labeled-statement
declaration-statement
labeled-statement: case constant-expression : statement
declaration-statement : block-declaration
where block-declaration is the kind of declaration that can occur
inside a block (i.e. - no function definitions, template declaration,
etc.)
-Sheldon
In article <b6**************************@posting.google.com >, nz******@cs.mun.ca (Neil Zanella) wrote: Hello,
Quite interesting. I wonder whether adding a rule to the C99 grammar for
accepting declarations following labeled statements would cause the
resulting grammar to be ambiguous (I doubt it), or whether there
would be some shift/reduce, reduce/shift, reduce/reduce conflicts
of some sort (more likely). How would such conflicts arise in
such a situation?
Unlikely that this could introduce any conflicts.
We assume that there is no conflict between unlabeled statement and
declaration (otherwise C has a big problem anyway). Labels are quite
trivial to recognise and to distinguish from anything else. Once the
label is recognised, you are left again with the task of distinguishing
between unlabeled statement and declaration. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Alexander Zatvornitskiy |
last post by:
Hello All!
I'am novice in python, and I find one very bad thing (from my point of view) in
language. There is no keyword or syntax to declare variable, like 'var' in
Pascal, or special syntax in...
|
by: Thomas Matthews |
last post by:
Hi,
I'm getting linking errors when I declare a variable in the
global scope, but not inside a function. The declarations
are the same (only the names have been changed...).
class Book
{...
|
by: James A. Donald |
last post by:
I am contemplating getting into Python, which is used by engineers I
admire - google and Bram Cohen, but was horrified to read
"no variable or argument declarations are necessary."
Surely that...
|
by: Michael B. |
last post by:
I was just thinking about this, specifically wondering if there's any
features that the C specification currently lacks, and which may be
included in some future standardization.
Of course, I...
|
by: Pedro Pinto |
last post by:
When compiling my program i got this error:
Error: 'for' loop initial declaration used outside c99 mode
What is it and how can i solve it?
Thanks in advance!
Regards
|
by: albert.neu |
last post by:
Hello!
What is the difference between "library parts" of C99 and "language
parts" of C99.
see...
|
by: jaime |
last post by:
Hi all.
Apologies, since this is more a tool question, than strictly a language
question, but hey, it seemed like an appropriate place to ask...
I'm a c newbie (and have been now for about 6...
|
by: subramanian100in |
last post by:
Consider the following program:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int i;
|
by: jacob navia |
last post by:
Several people in this group argue that standard C
is not portable since there are no compilers for it, etc.
I propose this program in Standard C, that I have compiled
in several OSes to test if...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
| |
