From 0b558962c137955bccb445d01c61c8d370212526 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alan Modra Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 00:15:42 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] * README.Portability: Fix typos. From-SVN: r55164 --- gcc/ChangeLog | 4 ++++ gcc/README.Portability | 14 +++++++------- 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog index ed5e361adea..7cd464157c3 100644 --- a/gcc/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2002-07-02 Alan Modra + + * README.Portability: Fix typos. + 2002-07-01 Hans-Peter Nilsson PR target/7177 diff --git a/gcc/README.Portability b/gcc/README.Portability index dba12406c61..04638b2a00c 100644 --- a/gcc/README.Portability +++ b/gcc/README.Portability @@ -123,8 +123,8 @@ int myfunc PARAMS ((double, int *)); int myfunc (var1, var2) - double var1; - int *var2; + double var1; + int *var2; { ... } @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ myfunc (var1, var2) This implies that if the function takes no arguments, it should be declared and defined as follows: -int myfunc PARAMS ((void)) +int myfunc PARAMS ((void)); int myfunc () @@ -300,8 +300,8 @@ long and int are not the same size. Second, if you write a function definition with no return type at all: - operate(a, b) - int a, b; + operate (a, b) + int a, b; { ... } @@ -314,8 +314,8 @@ Implicit function declarations always have return type int. So if you correct the above definition to void - operate(a, b) - int a, b; + operate (a, b) + int a, b; ... but operate() is called above its definition, you will get an error -- 2.30.2