NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c-part2/10620

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 1.6 KB

Path: mail2news.demon.co.uk!genesis.demon.co.uk
From: Lawrence Kirby <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Can a structure element be static?
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 22:23:45 GMT
Organization: none
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4iiqgm$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: genesis.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
X-Mail2News-Path: genesis.demon.co.uk

In article <4iiqgm$[e-mail]>
           [e-mail] "Bruce Wedding" writes:

>I was recently asked if a struct element can be static.  I
>replied of course not, since all elements of a struct have to be
>contiguous, the entire struct has to be static.  I then searched
>the standard.  I can't really pin down a spot that would disallow
>this other than the inference one can draw from the statement
>that all addresses must be in order.

It is simply a syntax error. If you look at the production rules in
6.5.2.1 you will see there is nothing there that allows a
storage-class-specifier (6.5.1) to appear in a member declaration
(struct-declaration).

>In any event, I don't own a compiler that will accept a static
>element, and I've tried it on 5 compilers.  The poser claims that
>such a struct will compile on TC 1.0 for dos and BC 4.5 for dos.

Since it is a syntax error it requires a diganostic from any
conforming compiler. As always the compiler can still proceeed to generate
an executable if it wishes.

--
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | [e-mail]
Wilts, England | [e-mail]
-----------------------------------------