21 Sep
2002
21 Sep
'02
3:11 a.m.
Warren Toomey wrote:
Actually I'm surprised that the V7 compiler would complain about this.
I seem to recall that there was still quite a lot of code in V7
(including the compiler itself) which didn't have an '=' before
the initialiser.
I don't have a V7 system to hand right now, but looking at the
compiler source appears to confirm that the '=' was still optional.
In extdef() at around line 69 of c02.c there is:
if (o!=ASSIGN)
peeksym = o;
... at this point in the code we have just processed an external
definition which is not a function and which is not followed by
either a comma or a semicolon and are about to attempt to parse
what follows as an initialiser. If the next symbol is '=' the
compiler swallows it, otherwise it pushes it back and continues
with parsing the initialiser.
So it certainly *looks* as if the V7 compiler didn't require the '='.
Perhaps you were using pcc?
static char PC1_D[] {
63,55,47,39,31,23,15,
7,62,54,46,38,30,22,
14, 6,61,53,45,37,29,
21,13, 5,28,20,12, 4,
};
That wasn't legal syntax, was it? There should be an '='
between [] and {, as in the rest of the file, no?
I just tried to compile the code with the V7 compiler and it complained.
Maybe it was legal in V6 and they used the .o file from there and didn't
recompile it.