Date:	Mon, 4 Nov 2002 17:30:59 +0200 (WET)
From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
X-Sender:	pavenis AT ieva06
To:	CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: LIBC 2.04 new function atoll() implementation
In-Reply-To:	<3DC3E2E5.8AA59996@yahoo.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10211041726220.24300-100000@ieva06>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, CBFalconer wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
> > > Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 16:36:21 +1100
> > >
> > > Below are atoll.c and atoll.txh, which together implement the missing
> > > atoll() function. I copied the existing atol.c and atol.txh and made
> > > hopefully the correct changes. Please let me know if I have made any
> > > mistakes as I don't know if I got the compatability right.
> > 
> > It's fine with me.
> 
> A very minor thought - no parameter gets re-evaluated, so wouldn't
> it be simpler to just define a macro?  The routine is still needed
> in case joe-bob makes a pointer.

I don't think so. Somebody may want to have member of some structure 
or class with this name. I once run into trouble as had a member function
named printf in class which does similar thing as printf does, but
send output somewhere else related to that class. Under Linux (newest
glibc versions) printf were implemented  as macro and I had to change name
of member function. Perhaps inline function could be better if acceptable

Andris

- Raw text -