[m-rev.] for review: deconstruct.named_arg for java

[Ian MacLarty]

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Ian MacLarty
<maclarty at csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Paul Bone <pbone at csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 02:04:23PM +1000, Ian MacLarty wrote:
>>>
>>> What seems to be happening is that functions are being declared with
>>> a prototype like the following:
>>>
>>>     static void mercury__tree234__LCMCpr_insert2_1_4_0(void) __asm__("_entry_" "mercury__tree234__LCMCpr_insert2_1_4_0")
>>>
>>> and then being referred to without being defined in C code.
>>> The functions are in fact defined using assembly code.
>>>
>>> It seems to be the fact that the function is declared static that is
>>> causing gcc to expect a definition of the function in the same file.
>>> Removing the static keyword appears to fix the problem.
>>>
>>> Here is the hack I used to test this:
>>
>> Why is there a static definition but no declaration?  In other words, are these
>> symbols really indented to be static?
>>
>
> There is a static declaration.  It is the definition that is missing.

(I think)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-reviews at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-reviews at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-reviews-request at csse.unimelb.edu.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------