🚀 go-pugleaf

Ian Cargill <ian@soliton.demon.co.uk> writes:

>In article <478bqi$nb3@rdsunx.crd.ge.com>
>           volpe@ausable.crd.ge.com "Christopher R. Volpe" writes:

>>In article <815241910snz@soliton.demon.co.uk>, Ian Cargill
>> <ian@soliton.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>

>If it is OK to make setjmp a function, why define it as being a macro, 
>in 7.6.1.1?  The only other things defined this way are assert, va_arg, 
>va_start and va_end, all of which must be macros.  If you want to allow 
>it to be either a macro or a function, why use this special wording?
>Why not just specify it in the same way as other things which can be 
>function and/or macros? (i.e. most functions)  


    what about some (hypothetical) architecture where it
    is not possible to implement setjmp() as a function?
    while all of functions in the standard library can
    be implemented as a macro, they also must exist as
    functions (7.1.7).  i don't know a whole lot about
    implementing setjmp(), but could this not be viewed
    as an unnecessary restriction to the implementation?

 --xmsb