sergio masci wrote:

> From what you are saying now, it is clear to me that yes you are
> talking about intrinsic functions. 

What follows doesn't seem to match my understanding of "intrinsic
function". As long as we use this term, can we define it, so that we
have a common understanding?

> Yes the function is defined in a library but the compiler also knows
> about the intent of the function.

Correct, but maybe better "the source code of the function is defined in
a library". The intent of the function is defined in the language
standard.

(Being defined in a library doesn't seem to match what's generally meant
with "intrinsic".)

> The intent is seperate from the definition since and is included by
> the compiler writer directly into the compiler. 

Correct.

> The definition of the function is provided by someone else (library
> implementor?) ...

Correct. Not necessary, but may be. 

> ... and may even be at odds with what the compiler understands it to
> be. 

It is possible, of course, that they are at odds, but I'd classify this
as a bug (in the compiler, in the library or in the standard). 

It seems we're getting somewhere :)  See also my response to Bill.

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist