sergio masci wrote:
>> Are you saying that a C compiler could understand that "sin()" is
>> standard and generate straight math processor instructions (intel FP
>> has had a FSIN instruction since forever) rather than a library call?
>> (assuming that it "knows" that the instructions and the library are
>> supposed to generate the same results...)
>
> This is what I now understand Gerhard to mean.

I think now that he wants this, which is what a intrisic function is whether
he likes to call it that or not, but also wants to override it if he defines
such a function himself.  I think languages that have intrinsic functions
are split on how this is handled.

I can see the point of generating a error if you try to define your own
routine with the name of a intrinsic function.  Never letting you redefine a
intrinsic is the safe thing to do.  It avoids nasty problems of scope, which
could be difficult to know at link time where some of this may have to be
resolved.  For example, your application may want a specialized version of a
intrinsic function, but its not clear what version a routine deep in a
library ends up getting when you may not even be aware the library used the
particular intrinsice.  In some cases, like if you are making use of special
hardware you know is present, you may want the library routines to use your
version.  In other cases the library may work incorrectly with your version,
if you took a few short cuts to gain speed, for example.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist