AVR-Chat

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:08:15PM +0100, Paul Curtis wrote:

"I believe it's the difference between

void foo();

And

void foo(void);

The first is a function that takes unspecified parameters and the second
is a function that takes no parameters."

Please forgive me if I make serious mistakes here, but I believe that

void foo();

may take unspecified parameters in K & R C but must take no parameters in
C89

and

void foo(void);

takes no parameters in K & R C and C89.

and

in C89, one may declare a prototype for a function whose quantity of
parameters is unspecified with

void foo(...);

and in so far as this discussion goes, I suspect that C89 and C99 are the
same (with void foo(); being equivalent to void foo(void); ), not that
GCC actually supports C99 ( HTTP://GCC.GNU.org/gcc-3.4/c99status.html ).

As for solving Chuck Hackett's porting problem, this does not. I do not
know why you are having problems. Chuck Hackett had said:

"[..]

Both functions are declared prior to their first use and
there are other "void funct()" functions which do not cause warnings.

[..]"

Where are the two rejected declarations declared (you did say "there" but 
that is a common English idiom)? Perhaps you need to check your
#ifdef settings. Though they might be declared before first being used,
where are they being used? Perhaps where they are called from is treated
as being part of a header file by GCC (with no function calls allowed) and
so their calls are being misinterpreted as declarations. Is a semicolon or
somesuch missing from before the declarations? Good luck.