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

[Paul Bone]

On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 02:38:42PM +1000, Ian MacLarty wrote:
> 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)

Sorry, I got it backwards.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mercurylang.org/archives/reviews/attachments/20100705/966893cb/attachment.sig>