Leichter, Jerry wrote:
If the function is defined as I suggested - as a static or inline - you can, indeed, takes its address. (In the case of an inline, this forces the compiler to materialize a copy somewhere that it might not otherwise have produced, but not to actually *use* that copy, except when you take the address.) You are allowed to invoke the function using the address you just took. However, what in that tells you that the compiler - knowing exactly what code will be invoked - can't elide the call?
Case of static function definition: the standard says that standard library headers *declare* functions, not *define* them.
Case of inline: I don't know if inline definition falls in the standard definition of declaration.
Also, the standard refers to these identifiers as external linkage. This language *might* not creare a mandatory provision if there was a compelling reason to have static or inline implementation, but I doubt the very infrequent use of (memset)(?,0,?) instead of memset(?,0,?) is a significant optimization opportunity. The compiler writer risks a non-compliance assessment in making such strectched reading of the standard in the present instance, for no gain in any benchmark or production software speed measurement.
Obviously, a pointer to an external linkage scope function must adhere to the definition of pointer equality (==) operator.
Maybe a purposedly stretched reading of the standard might let you make your point. I don't want to argue too theoretically. Peter and I just want to clear memory!
Kind regards, -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, Qc Canada H2M 2A1 Tel.: (514)385-5691 Fax: (514)385-5900 web site: http://www.connotech.com e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
