Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> I thought this all is basically understood when talking about standard
> libraries (that is, libraries with an interface that is part of the
> language standard).

Normally "standard library" refers to a documented set of subroutines that
have a widely agreed upon interface and are supplied with the compiler.
This does not mean the compiler understands these interfaces.  That's what
intrinsic functions are.

You seem to want intrinsic functions that you can also write yourself if you
want to.  While that is theoretically possible, it's a lot of work in the
compiler, and letting you provide your own version would defeat some of the
possible optimizations gained by making them intrinsic functions.  That also
means you would have to tell the compiler somehow when you want to supply
your own version of a intrinsic function because it would be too late to
discover this in the linker.  The compiler needs to know, for example, to
avoid replacing the call with inline code it creates itself, as is common
with real intrinsic functions.


********************************************************************
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