Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!alberta!myrias!cmt
From: cmt@myrias.UUCP (Chris Thomson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Some questions about ANSI C
Message-ID: <524@myrias.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Aug-87 03:16:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: myrias.524
Posted: Mon Aug 24 03:16:17 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Aug-87 05:58:41 EDT
References: <497@houxs.UUCP> <5080003@hpfcdc.HP.COM>
Organization: Myrias Research, Edmonton
Lines: 18

> As for the arguments about taking the address of setjmp, the draft
> also said (under "environmental constraint") that the only context in
> which setjmp can portably appear is comparison to an integral constant
> expression.  This seems to mean that no true setjmp() function had to
> exist, even before the Paris change.
> 		Bob Lenk

Not true.  You could still have a call via a function pointer that points
at setjmp() in a comparison context.  This means that every indirect call
of appropriate type in a comparison context might be a call to setjmp.
And that's just for correct programs.  What happens if any old indirect
call could be a (possibly erroneous) call to setjmp()?  How much work
should be done to do something sensible in every such case?

Life is much simpler if you always know when a setjump() is being done.
-- 
Chris Thomson, Myrias Research Corporation	   alberta!myrias!cmt
200 10328 81 Ave, Edmonton Alberta, Canada	   403-432-1616