Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!pyramid!pesnta!phri!roy From: roy@phri.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Compiler Specific Operators Message-ID: <2391@phri.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Jul-86 23:02:06 EDT Article-I.D.: phri.2391 Posted: Tue Jul 15 23:02:06 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jul-86 08:03:24 EDT References: <1825@uw-beaver> <503@cubsvax.UUCP> <505@cubsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY) Lines: 13 In article <505@cubsvax.UUCP> peters@cubsvax.UUCP (Peter S. Shenkin) writes: [Regarding compilers replacing calls to library routines with in-line code] > What the hell difference does it make, from the user's point of view? > That is, why should he ever be anything other than happy, if some > alternative invoked by the compiler produces faster-running code? What if you want to trap and/or trace subroutine calls for diagnostic or tuning purposes or you want to supply your own version of the library routine because it's faster, more accurate, or more featureful? -- Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016