Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hadron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rlgvax!prcrs!hadron!jsdy
From: jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Addresses of static functions
Message-ID: <134@hadron.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Mar-85 09:53:50 EST
Article-I.D.: hadron.134
Posted: Wed Mar 13 09:53:50 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 00:42:06 EST
References: <8580@brl-tgr.ARPA> <169@encore.UUCP>
Organization: Hadron, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Lines: 14

> >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
> ... [suggests, essentially, making statics long-return just like externs,
>	then doesn't like it] ...
> Or you could choose a different CPU.

I like that last choice best.  The 80*86 architecture never made me
happy.  Unfortunately, right about now the best selling u-chip is the
80*86 family, judging from the number of implementations I've seen.
Least expensive, first in the market (~), IBM-approved, etc.  Don't
flame me for those observations -- they're what is.	;-S

Joe Yao		hadron!jsdy@seismo.{ARPA,UUCP}