Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:08:02 +0400 From: Roman Kurakin <rik@inse.ru> To: Daniel Gerzo <danger@FreeBSD.ORG>, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man9 style.9 Message-ID: <4874FE82.5090809@localhost.inse.ru> In-Reply-To: <20080709154945.GA47824@zim.MIT.EDU> References: <200807091404.m69E4jiC075715@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080709154945.GA47824@zim.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Schultz wrote: > On Wed, Jul 09, 2008, Daniel Gerzo wrote: > >> -Do not declare functions inside other functions; ANSI C says that >> -such declarations have file scope regardless of the nesting of the >> -declaration. >> -Hiding file declarations in what appears to be a local >> -scope is undesirable and will elicit complaints from a good compiler. >> +Do not declare functions inside other functions; nested functions are >> +a GCC extension and are not permitted by ANSI C. >> > > We use lots of extensions that aren't strict ANSI C. I think the > real reason not to use them is that gcc's nested functions are > particularly unwieldily. First, they're not true lexical closures > (and can't be), which makes them much less useful. Second, they > are unsupported unless a number of assumptions are met, e.g., must > have an executable stack, must be able to invalidate the I cache > from userland, and must not have separate I and D address spaces. > Nested functions abominable enough that Apple disabled the feature > in OS X's build of gcc --- and the Sun and Intel compilers don't > support them, even though Intel claims nearly complete gcc > compatibility. > I think from non-technical side, nested functions are not expected by most programmers. From my point of view there are many new extensions that a good for quick hacking, but not for the production code. rik
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4874FE82.5090809>