From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Tue Sep 18 12:10:47 2012
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 6E0A9356973; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:10:47 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1182356877
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:10:46 +0200 (CEST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:34093)
	by ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25)
	with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1TDulR-0004ar-ZO (Exim 4.72) for sc22wg5@open-std.org
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:10:46 +0100
Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk)
	with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1TDulR-0001aN-Uj (Exim 4.72) for sc22wg5@open-std.org
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:10:45 +0100
Received: from [131.111.10.113] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk
	with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 18 Sep 2012 11:10:45 +0100
Date: 18 Sep 2012 11:10:45 +0100
From: "N.M. Maclaren" <nmm1@cam.ac.uk>
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4784) [WG5 letter ballot 4 on Fortran 2008
 interpretations]
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.5.1209181110450.27739@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20120918094230.F3AF9356973@www.open-std.org>
References: <20120914232724.BB7E5356938@www.open-std.org><Prayer.1.3.5.1209150833200.28139@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk><20120915222530.59C0835698D@www.open-std.org><20120918081154.8817935692C@www.open-std.org>
 <20120918092311.902E035692C@www.open-std.org>
 <20120918094230.F3AF9356973@www.open-std.org>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sep 18 2012, Malcolm Cohen wrote:

>I do not agree.  This has to be a straightforward violation of the syntax, 
>seeing as how the struct-declaration-list BNF requires at least one 
>struct-declaration. ...

Yes, you are absolutely right.  I have no idea what I managed to look at
to find the specification that confused me.  Sorry about that.  However,
it is a bit weird that neither gcc nor icc object to it, even with the
-ansi flag, so they seem to have got confused in the same way.

That demolishes even my niggle (and it never was more).  While it is
possible to have a pointer to an unspecified structure in C, no form of
indirection through the pointer is allowed.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.