Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })

On 12/05/2025 11:27, Keith Thompson wrote:

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
[...]

It isn't just that checking the condition cannot be done in general.
To be reliable the parameter length information would need to be
part of the function's type.  That has implications for type
compatibility and also for the types of pointers-to-function.  And
it would mean that removing a 'static' array length specification on
a function definition would necessitate also changing the functions
declarations, plus any affected pointers-to-function.  Not worth it,
even if in theory it were doable.

[...]
 In my opinion, keeping a function's definition and declarations
consistent is absolutely worth it, even if the language might not
require it.
 

Sure.  If gcc had a warning enforcing such consistency, I would definitely use it.
But not all C programmers are as pedantic about consistency between a function declaration and definition.  It is not uncommon to be inconsistent about the names of parameters (or even if the parameters have names at all), or mixing array-style parameters and pointer-style parameters.