Standard library macros

[Keith Thompson]

No it can't. You're not talking about "functions", but "special forms".
Just because something uses the syntax "name(argument list)", that doesn't
make it a function.

There isn't a single *function* in the standard which requires special
treatment from the compiler. Anything which looks like a function either
can be implemented in a library on any sane platform or is a macro.


If you want C++, you know where to find it.

I don't think C++ functions or templates can implement offsetof()
(which takes a member name as an argument) or assert() (which
requires source level information from the point of invocation)
any better than C can.

 

[Malcolm McLean]

There are a couple of cases, such as getc() and putc(), where a
macro implementation was allowed to evaluate its argument more than
once.  These were allowed for efficiency issues.  Where it actually
makes a difference, I'm not so sure the efficiency issue has actually
gone away.

I never use getc(), and the efficiency difference with fgetc() has
never been a problem.

 

[jacob navia]

Le 13/11/10 03:13, Eric Sosman a écrit :

Show us your implementations of offsetof(), setjmp(), and
assert() as functions, and *then* we'll talk.

For an implementation of setjmp as a function see lcc-win.

 

[Peter Nilsson]

...
     Show us your implementations of offsetof(), setjmp(), and
assert() as functions, and *then* we'll talk.

There are quite a few implementations of setjmp() as a function.
What surprises me is that longjmp() is required to exist as a
function.

 

[Peter Nilsson]

<snip more beer milkshakes>

Sometimes I imagine that you and Mr Sosmanji just look for
reasons to oppose my suggestions...

Well someone has to, because you clearly don't.