Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site encore.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!encore!ptw
From: ptw@encore.UUCP (P. Tucker Withington)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Addresses of static functions
Message-ID: <169@encore.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Feb-85 14:52:00 EST
Article-I.D.: encore.169
Posted: Mon Feb 25 14:52:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 21:13:06 EST
References: <8580@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: ptw@encore.UUCP (P. Tucker Withington)
Organization: Encore Computer Corp., Wellesley Hills, MA
Lines: 17
Summary: 

>it's worth it.  Just have, for each static whose address is taken in
>the module, a long-return (unnamed) function whose sole purpose is
>to copy the args back onto the stack and do a short-call to the static

Since the static function by def'n can't be seen outside the module, why not
have *it* be the "(unnamed)" function?  Seems even debuggers could live with
that.  If they can live with inverted and non-inverted loops (did you use -O?)
they should be able to deal with direct and "indirect" functions.

Presumably a function declared static should be optimized for "local" use.
Taking the & of it and passing it out of the module, while legal, is perhaps
a bit perverse (although C++ might not agree with that).

Or you could choose a different CPU.

                               o.o      --tucker
                                ~