On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:25:34PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Robert Dewar wrote: > > > I have certainly seen it used, but you may well be right that it is > > seldom used. It is certainly reasonable to consider removing this > > extension from C and C++. Anyone using that feature? Or know anyone > > who is.
> Nested functions are used in the glibc dynamic linker. I'm not sure why, > and they may be inline nested functions whose addresses are never taken. > The extension is not present in GNU C++, only in GNU C. Well, Andreas Schwab seems to think this is no longer the case. I don't want to dive into the glibc mess, thanks god, but if the dynamic linker is implemented like dynamic linkers I know, it means any binary using a dynamic linker that uses trampolines will lose any kind of stack protection on some badly designed architectures, like say, i386...
