Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!actnyc!jsb
From: jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: sizeof(function) - preproposal survey
Message-ID: <693@actnyc.UUCP>
Date: 17 Feb 88 16:50:58 GMT
References: <11801@brl-adm.ARPA> <2296@umd5.umd.edu>
Reply-To: jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man)
Organization: Diet Software
Lines: 27

In article <2296@umd5.umd.edu> chris@trantor.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:
]In article <11801@brl-adm.ARPA> LINNDR%VUENGVAX.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes:
]>... The gist
]>of my proposal is that the
]>sizeof operator, when applied to a function name, would return the
]>length of the function rather than the size of a pointer to a function.
]
]It might be nice, but it is a much larger change than you think.
]In particular, the compiler does not know the size of a function [*],
]hence the result would not be a constant.  It is probably possible
]to implement this under most systems, although many might require
]work on the linker.
]

Also, it is not clear what this might mean in the presence of optimization.
After an optimization pass, must we go back and change the 'sizeof' values?
And what if a function is expanded in line? 

Then again, there are times when we want the size of a pointer to a function;
I assume you want to reserve the new meaning for use of the actual 'name'
of the function.

-- 
	
				jim [missing right bracket in expression

				(uunet!actnyc!jsb)