Larry Weiss wrote...
>What specific instances can anyone recall of C code having
>different semantics if given to a C++ compiler? (I don't have
>the H&S reference cited above, but I assume that it details
>some of these scenarios?)

I posted the following on 14 Feb 1998 summarising the cases noted in H&S. Apologies for the somewhat assertive phrasing -- it was appropriate in context:

---
In C++, you can't use the identifiers asm, bool, catch, class, const_cast, delete, dynamic_cast, false, friend, inline, mutable, namespace, new, operator, private, protected, public, reinterpret_cast, static_cast, template, this, throw, true, try, typeid, using, or virtual. You can't declare a type inside a struct definition and have it visible outside. You can't have storage class specifiers in type declarations. You can't refer to a top-level 'const' object with no explicit storage class from another translation unit. You can't initialise a character array from a string literal which is "too long". You can't call a function without declaring it first. You can't use old-style function definitions. You can't use enumeration constants as integers (without an explicit cast). You can't convert from a 'void *' to another pointer type without an explicit cast. You can't declare types inside sizeof expressions, parameter lists or return types. You can't jump into a compound statement if this would skip declarations with initialisers. You can't do a 'return' with no value from a non-void function, even if you never use the "result". You can't call 'main' recursively.

Also, you may get different behaviour in C++ because: // comments are recognised; structure tags are implicitly declared as typedef names; a declaration like 'int f()' is a prototype declaration and signifies that the function takes no arguments.
---

If by "different semantics" you mean a program which is valid C and valid C++ but has a different meaning under each, the examples of this tend to be a bit improbable. The one which always surfaces on occasions such as these is

  int x = 2 //* Would anyone actually write this? */ 2
    ;

which sets x to 2 in C++ (because everything after the // disappears) or 1 in C (because only the /*...*/ goes).

Another one is:

  typedef int x;
  {
    struct x { int a, b; };
    printf ("%d\n", (int) sizeof (x));
  }

This prints sizeof(int) in C. In C++, the struct tag 'x' shadows the outer typedef so the size of the structure -- at least 2*sizeof(int) -- is displayed.

Cheers,
Richard