Re: Autoconf support for bounds checking?

[Greg McGary]

Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Here are more details about the scenario that I was thinking of.
> Suppose the actual function's signature is `char *F (void);' but F
> exists only in the non-BP library.  'configure' will compile a
> declaration `char F ();' in BP mode.  My understanding of your scheme
> is that this declaration will match the non-BP F since `char F ();'
> has no pointers so no __BP_ string is prefixed to it.

OK.  I see.  That's a possible danger.  Like most kludges, the
proposed two-pass (mis)feature has problems.  Since BPs depend on
accurate prototype decls for best results, I'm looking forward to
having BPs leverage support for C99 as you proposed earlier.

> ...  As before, the rest of this message is more
> about bounds checking than about autoconf, but here goes anyway.
> (Maybe you can save time by pointing me to the documenation.  :-)

Maybe I could save you some time by writing the documentation! 8^\
I really need to write this up, and that should answer all questions
and probably expose some flaws as well.  Stay tuned.

Greg