http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=701
Walter Bright <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #4 from Walter Bright <[email protected]> 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: -------
