Message-Id:	<199811151154.LAA25534@remus.clara.net>
From:	"Arthur" <arfa AT clara DOT net>
To:	<djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: size of a function in memory
Date:	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 11:53:39 -0000
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.981115131406.1381V-100000@is>
X-MIMEOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Importance:	Normal
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> > > Be aware that this is not portable.  It depends fairly strongly on
> > > GCC's
> > > compiling conventions and may fail on other compilers, or even some
> > > future version of GCC.  If it's for something like memory locking that
> > > isn't portable anyway, though, this probably isn't much of an issue.
> >
> > I can't imagine why anyone would need to know the size of a function
> > unless they were already planning on doing something extremely
> > nonportable.
>
> True, but this could also break with a new release of GCC, and you
> would hardly want your code be dependent on a compiler version.

Allegro uses the technique for memory locking which _is_ unportable - the
functions have to be removed from ports of XWinAllegro etc.

If the system breaks down with a new release of DJGPP, is there a more
portable method of doing this?

James Arthur
jaa AT arfa DOT clara DOT net
ICQ#15054819

- Raw text -