From: jb3207 AT eclipse DOT co DOT uk DOT removeme (Jason Barstow)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Function Sizes
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:36:30 GMT
Message-ID: <33f9d88f.336368@news.eclipse.co.uk>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970819161648 DOT 21250R-100000 AT is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: p19.dione.eclipse.co.uk
Organization: "Cable Internet (post doesn't reflect views of Cable Internet)"
Lines: 21
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

"Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>" wrote:

>The only reliable way is to write the function in assembly.

Eli,
I appreciate you are trying to discourage bad practise but
will you please summarise the *current* situation
(RE: Using an "empty" function to determine function end)

Do any current optimisations break this method?

What about PGCC releases (Andrew?)

Thanks,
Jason.


---------
Jason Barstow (jb3207 AT eclipse DOT co DOT uk DOT removeme)
Do you want to hire a villa in Florida? Not commercial!
http://www.eclipse.co.uk/~jb3207/villa_brochure.html