Subject: Re: signal trampoline implementation choices
To: Olaf Seibert <>
From: None <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 04/22/2002 17:37:11
At Tue, 23 Apr 2002 02:27:08 +0200, Olaf Seibert wrote:
> On Sat 20 Apr 2002 at 20:23:26 -0700, wrote:
> > Of course, IIRC the stack "needs" to be executable to support other
> > generic features of e.g. our compiler.  (e.g. nested functions in C,
> > which is a GCC extension.)
> > 
> > (some would say they're gross, but i've actually seen code that uses
> > them...)
> I hope you don't really mean to say that nested function definitions are
> gross?

No, I meant what I said: _some_ would say that they're gross.

I don't know whether I agree with that assessment, but I don't
personally use them and I certainly can see some arguments that say
that their use in C is, in fact, gross.

Nested function definitions in C don't normally enter my consciousness
at all.  8-)