🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <314DADD4.3DE@oc.com>, Larry Weiss  <lfw@oc.com> wrote:
>What do C hackers think about the new freedom (since the publication of
>the C Standard) that compilers have to "inline" standard library calls,
>thereby making it hard for hackers to provide their own variations of
>any standard library "function" ?

I love it!

It means I can use library calls without worrying about how long function
calls take, knowing that if it matters, the library is likely to inline
it.

>In the old days, when the Standard library was just another set of linkable
>entry points, it was straightforward to replace the vendor's logic with
>your own (maybe just the same with tracepoint logic, but maybe a very 
>experimental replacement, and maybe a "better" one).   No more!

It's still straightforward; you write your own logic, and then use a function
which uses your logic.  If your logic doesn't work, you just make the function
a stub around the library routine.

This is SOP if you don't quite like the semantics of a library call, and also
makes it easier to work around vendor bugs.

I don't do it for most calls, but I bring it in occasionally.

For instance, most of the functions in the stdlib that take a single
char * argument, I have stubs for which take (char *, ...) and do
"the right thing" with vsprintf.  Easy!

>What is the position of other languages with respect to their equivalent
>of the "Standard library" ?   Can I hack the runtime support in other
>languages today more easily than I can the C runtime?

I have no idea about this one.

-s
-- 
Peter Seebach - seebs@solon.com - Copyright 1996 Peter Seebach.
C/Unix wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help.  No, really!
FUCK the communications decency act.  Goddamned government.  [literally.]
The *other* C FAQ - http://www.solon.com/~seebs/c/c-iaq.html