[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 11:26:47PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > I have done it by having the original, non-_r functions provide a
> > > thunk for the comparison function, as this is least invasive. If we
> > > think this is too expensive, an alternative is generating a union of
> > > function pointers and making tests at the call sites; another option
> > > is to duplicate the code (hopefully with cpp rather than C&P) but that
> > > seems like a bad plan.
> > I'd prefer to not have another indirect call. The only difference
> > is the definition and expanding a CMP macro differently?
> Is just casting the function pointers safe in C (well in NetBSD)?
> (with the calling conventions that Unix effectively requires)
No. Well, it is, but it's explicitly illegal C and I don't think we
should do it.
> Can anything slightly less nasty be done with varags functions?
Don't immediately see how...
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |