"F. Laupretre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or maybe, if it is really too smart (able to compute the result at
> compile time), we could have not to use a constant argument. Something
> like 'return finite((double)argv) ? 0 : 1'.
If the compiler is able to compute the result without using the external
function, that's fine. That's equivalent to having a macro-based
implementation, which is exactly what we're going out of our way to
allow here. All that we have to do is ensure that the compiler can't
discard the expression un-evaluated, so making the exit value depend
on it seems pretty bulletproof to me.
I suppose though that there's some chance of the constant-argument case
being treated differently from not-constant, so your idea has some merit.
We couldn't use argc/argv however because the autoconf skeleton for
main() doesn't declare 'em.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
