Mail Archives: djgpp/2004/09/22/11:00:39
Cesar Rabak <crabak AT acm DOT org> wrote:
> fdonahoe AT wilkes DOT edu escreveu:
[...]
> > # 628 "./gmp-impl.h"
> > void __gmpz_aorsmul_1 (mp_size_t sub,mpz_ptr w,mpz_srcptr u,mp_limb_t
> > v) __attribute__ ((regparm (1)));
[...]
> > # 60 "mpz/aorsmul_i.c"
> > void
> > __gmpz_aorsmul_1 (mp_size_t sub,mpz_ptr w,mpz_srcptr x,mp_limb_t y)
> > {
> They don't look to have any clash between declaration and definition for
> me.
Absence vs. presence of __attribute__((regparm(1)) should not be a
clash? I would rather strongly expect it to count as one --- if the
__attribute___ is useful at all, it's a change of ABI, which makes the
prototype incompatible with the definition.
BTW: what exaxctly made the GMP people believe they can violate the
ANSI/ISO standard C reserved-for-implementation namespace like that?
This actually means that strictly speaking, the above causes undefined
behaviour, and everything goes.
--
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
- Raw text -