Thread: a syntax error question..

The error is somewhere else in the code (or you have a broken compiler - but I don't think that's the case - I'm pretty sure it's bad code above the main function. I just compiled a copy-n-paste of your code in gcc-mingw.

--
Mats

The code looks okay, and this is confirmed when I try to compile. However, I note that the variable i is declared in the middle of a block. This is not allowed in C prior to the 1999 edition of the C standard. However, it is easily fixed with:

Code:

int main() { 
  int limit = 54; 
  
  int i;                                         //line 57
  for(i=1;i<=limit;++i) {            //line58
    print_if_sum_of_abundants(i); 
  }
  return 0;
}

Now i is declared at the start of the block along with limit.

EDIT:
Wait a minute... I'm wrong: the MinGW port of gcc 3.4.5 appears to consider the assignment of 54 to i as an initialisation (and loosely speaking, it is indeed an initialisation), so perhaps I am not clear of the difference between the rules of C and C++. Furthermore, your use of // comments indicates that your code must be C99.

That's because you're using C89, which requires you to declare all variables first, before you use them.
Hence doing this, will work:

Code:

int limit = 54;
int i;

QuantumPete

Originally Posted by QuantumPete

That's because you're using C89, which requires you to declare all variables first, before you use them.
Hence doing this, will work:

Code:

int limit = 54;
int i;

QuantumPete

Good point!

--
Nats

Originally Posted by matsp

Good point!

Apparently not. Refer to my edit of post #3.

Originally Posted by transgalactic2

it works thanks

As in when you change the definition of limit to be a normal initialisation the error disappears? And at the same time you can use // comments? What compiler are you using and are you compiling in C89 or C99 mode?

EDIT:
Oh, I discovered that in my haste I forgot the -pedantic option to gcc, hence gcc did not complain about the declaration in the middle of the block despite -std=c89. Nonetheless, a compiler compiling the code as C89 should have rejected the // comments as syntactically invalid, so it is still strange.

Originally Posted by laserlight

Nonetheless, a compiler compiling the code as C89 should have rejected the // comments as syntactically invalid, so it is still strange.

I think the OP just added the // when forming the question, he probably doesn't have a comment for every line number in his code...

QuantumPete