Am 05.02.2011 12:18, schrieb Ullrich von Bassewitz: > On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 01:09:40AM +0100, silverdr@wfmh.org.pl wrote: >> If my two pennies are of any value then I find >> >>> 2. Accept replacement functions using smc, but let them have different >>> names, so a programmer must explicitly call the smc version. >> most appealing. Reasons for that: > In the current situation, I do also see this as the most appealing approach: > Hi, I would prefer handling #3 (like I already thought about in post http://www.cc65.org/mailarchive/2010-01/7769.html ). When using different names for function that do the same thing, I see the problem, that the resulting linkage will become bloated. The start-up codes e.g. use _bzero(). When now using smc_memset(), we have in result an executable which contains the standard memset() as well as the smc_memset(). I regard this as waste of memory. BR Christian ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Sun Feb 6 12:28:09 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2011-02-06 12:28:11 CET