The latest gcc compiler is 14.2, or something like that.
I have used prior versions 11.2 and 12.2 which allow
C code that does not always type routines, such as
int main()

Since the original compiler, it was understood that
the default for a routine is type int, so that
a compiler would accept

main()

and, although it might give a nuisance warning
the program would compile and run.

The latest gcc seems to require every routine
to be typed. As of the current time, I have
1,046,000 lines of C code written over the last
45 years or so, and much of it was written
according to K&R.

Does anyone know of a compiler add-on which will
read existing code, and insert type (int) when
the routine is not explicitly given?


Thanks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 03:19:58 -0000 (UTC), root <[email protected]> wrote in <vo3u4t$37omt$[email protected]>:

The latest gcc compiler is 14.2, or something like that.
I have used prior versions 11.2 and 12.2 which allow C code that does
not always type routines, such as int main()

Since the original compiler, it was understood that the default for a
routine is type int, so that a compiler would accept

main()

and, although it might give a nuisance warning the program would compile
and run.

The latest gcc seems to require every routine to be typed. As of the
current time, I have 1,046,000 lines of C code written over the last 45
years or so, and much of it was written according to K&R.

Does anyone know of a compiler add-on which will read existing code, and insert type (int) when the routine is not explicitly given?

Thanks.

You can probably get the code to compile with the
proper "--std=" directive to gcc.

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.13.1 Release: Mint 22.1 Mem: 258G
"If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/7/25 1:02 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 03:19:58 -0000 (UTC), root wrote:

The latest gcc seems to require every routine to be typed. As of the
current time, I have 1,046,000 lines of C code written over the last 45
years or so, and much of it was written according to K&R.

Jeopardy question: “What is Technical Debt?”

Heh heh heh ... :-)

Yep, The Background CAN change - and fucks up
a LOT of What Came Before. Don't like it at all,
but it's gonna happen anyway.

A common example is the change from Python-2
to Python-3. It's *almost* the same, but not
*quite*.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7 Feb 2025 04:11:02 GMT, vallor wrote:

You can probably get the code to compile with the proper "--std="
directive to gcc.

-fpermissive may work too. I had a similar problem with variables defined
in header files. It was never a good idea but when you're dealing with 25
years of legacy code. It required editing the makefiles but that was
easier than sorting out the mess.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 03:19:58 -0000 (UTC), root wrote:

The latest gcc seems to require every routine to be typed. As of the
current time, I have 1,046,000 lines of C code written over the last 45
years or so, and much of it was written according to K&R.

Jeopardy question: “What is Technical Debt?”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

root <[email protected]> writes:

Does anyone know of a compiler add-on which will
read existing code, and insert type (int) when
the routine is not explicitly given?

No add-on needed, just have a look at the manual, specifically:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-14.1.0/gcc/Standards.html#C-Language

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Richard Kettlewell <[email protected]d> wrote:

root <[email protected]> writes:

Does anyone know of a compiler add-on which will
read existing code, and insert type (int) when
the routine is not explicitly given?

No add-on needed, just have a look at the manual, specifically:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-14.1.0/gcc/Standards.html#C-Language

Thanks Richard, but, also looking at the dialect link, what option
should I use to mimic gcc version 11.2.0 (GCC) or 12.2, either of
which compiles my stuff without a problem. I have tried std=gnu89
but that didn't work. I tried other stuff of the form -Wno-implicit-init
or something like that that compiler suggested but no change with
that.

It might be that gnu89 would compile my most really old stuff,
but since then I have adapted to newer compilers that gnu89
doesn't like. There are 1,354 .c files, and as I said, over
1,045,000 lines of code. I am too old to fix them in my
remaining lifetime.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 17:35:43 -0000 (UTC), root <[email protected]> wrote in <vo5g9e$3jith$[email protected]>:

vallor <[email protected]> wrote:

You can probably get the code to compile with the proper "--std="
directive to gcc.

I tried std=gnu89, but that didn't fix the problem.

A really strange thing: one of my old programs had a list of routines at
the front, with entries like:
int main ();
void this();

etc.

when the compiler encountered the line

int main(argc,argv)

it threw up an error.

Not sure what would be going on there.

$ cat try.c
#include <stdio.h>

int main();
void this();

int main(argc,argv)
int argc;
char ** argv;
{
printf("%s\n","Does this work?");
return 0;
}

$ make try
cc "-std=gnu89" try.c -o try

$ ./try
Does this work?

$ cat try2.c
#include <stdio.h>

int main();
void this();

int main(argc,argv)
/*int argc;
char ** argv;*/
{
printf("%s\n","Does this work?");
return 0;
}

$ make try2
cc "-std=gnu89" try2.c -o try2

$ ./try2
Does this work?

$ gcc --version
gcc (Ubuntu 13.3.0-6ubuntu2~24.04) 13.3.0
Copyright (C) 2023 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.

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.13.1 Release: Mint 22.1 Mem: 258G
"Come any closer and I'll use my magnet!"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

vallor <[email protected]> wrote:

You can probably get the code to compile with the
proper "--std=" directive to gcc.

I tried std=gnu89, but that didn't fix the problem.

A really strange thing: one of my old programs
had a list of routines at the front, with entries
like:
int main ();
void this();

etc.

when the compiler encountered the line

int main(argc,argv)

it threw up an error.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

root <[email protected]> writes:

Richard Kettlewell <[email protected]d> wrote:

root <[email protected]> writes:

Does anyone know of a compiler add-on which will read existing code,
and insert type (int) when the routine is not explicitly given?

No add-on needed, just have a look at the manual, specifically:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-14.1.0/gcc/Standards.html#C-Language

Thanks Richard, but, also looking at the dialect link, what option
should I use to mimic gcc version 11.2.0 (GCC) or 12.2, either of
which compiles my stuff without a problem.

There’s no option to mimic a different compiler version. The options
select a language version.

If you want the behavior of a specific compiler version then the usual
approach is just to use that version.

I have tried std=gnu89 but that didn't work. I tried other stuff of
the form -Wno-implicit-init or something like that that compiler
suggested but no change with that.

Post some example code, the exact command you used to compile it, and
the errors you go.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Richard Kettlewell <[email protected]d> wrote:

Post some example code, the exact command you used to compile it, and
the errors you go.

Thanks for the offer Richard. I have moved beyond the problem.
I have what I need with the 11.2.0 compiler and the 6.12.12 kernel.

I think this will give an example of what I found:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <termio.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <ctype.h>

int main();

//lots more code in here

int main(argc,argv)
int argc;
char *argv[];
{
exit(0);
}

The command first command would have been
simply gcc program.c -o program

then I tried stuff like:

gcc --std=gnu89 program.c -o program

The actual program I looked at had used forward
references and I put a large number of the
declarations up front. The new compiler flagged
the redefinitions as errors, not warnings as
might have been done with a duplicate #define.

I can't remember now what program it was, nor
for what compiler I originally used that would
have allowed the forward references.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 22:28:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 07/02/2025 17:35, root wrote:

when the compiler encountered the line

int main(argc,argv)

it threw up an error.

Well did you have
{
char *argv[]; int argc;

...underneath?

itym
char *argv[]; int argc;
{

as in
/* K&R C style function */
int main(argc,argv)
char *argv[]; int argc;
{
/*... */
return 0;
}

:-)

--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills We Trust"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/02/2025 17:35, root wrote:

when the compiler encountered the line

int main(argc,argv)

it threw up an error.

Well did you have
{
char *argv[]; int argc;

...underneath?
--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. Mark Twain

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 22:44:32 -0000 (UTC), Lew Pitcher wrote:

int main(argc,argv)
char *argv[]; int argc;

Ah, good old Algol-60-type syntax ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/02/2025 22:44, Lew Pitcher wrote:

On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 22:28:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 07/02/2025 17:35, root wrote:

when the compiler encountered the line

int main(argc,argv)

it threw up an error.

Well did you have
{
char *argv[]; int argc;

...underneath?

itym
char *argv[]; int argc;
{

as in
/* K&R C style function */
int main(argc,argv)
char *argv[]; int argc;
{
/*... */
return 0;
}

:-)

Yup. I fully adopted the 'definitions inside the function brackets'
years ago and forgotted (sic!) the exact syntax.

--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:

On 07/02/2025 17:35, root wrote:

when the compiler encountered the line

int main(argc,argv)

it threw up an error.

Well did you have
{
char *argv[]; int argc;

...underneath?

I put the argument definitions on separate lines
after the function line.


The complaint was for the int main().

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)