Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!att-ih!gargoyle!oddjob!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: replacing functions at compile time
Message-ID: <10908@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 3 Apr 88 11:21:27 GMT
References: <610@ambush.UUCP> <3850011@hpfclq.HP.COM>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 15

>>... Calls to external functions can be treated atomically, as "black
>>boxes" -- but there's no rule that says they *have* to be.

In article <3850011@hpfclq.HP.COM> mike@hpfclq.HP.COM (Mike McNelly) writes:
>... True, the compiler can certainly understand the semantics of a
>routine such as printf() ....  However, there's no guarantee that the
>programmer doesn't have his own version of these routines ... [unless]
>you reserve these names as part of the language ....

The draft ANSI standard for C does reserve those names as part of
the language.  One reason is just so that compilers *can* do this
sort of optimisation.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris