http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=701


Walter Bright <bugzi...@digitalmars.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX


--- Comment #4 from Walter Bright <bugzi...@digitalmars.com> 2012-01-29 
01:41:00 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'm changing the name of this issue, since it actually has nothing to do with
> inner functions. It applies to _any_ use of 'naked'. Basically naked 
> calculates
> offsets assuming that a stack frame is present -- even though the main use of
> naked is to avoid having a stack frame!

Naked assumes you set up your own stack frame, not that you don't have one. I
don't think there's any magic answer to this.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to