Olin Lathrop wrote:

> 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.

Define "normally" and "documented" and "widely agreed upon" for this
context :)

Or, alternatively, have a look at a language standard that contains
library interface definitions (e.g. the C++ standard -- you'll find a
link in this thread to a draft). 

If the interface is defined ("documented" in a "standard") -- both in
syntax and semantics --, the compiler writer can rely on this definition
for any high-level optimizations.

I have written what I understand in this context as "standard library"
repeatedly in this thread; just search for it. 

> You seem to want intrinsic functions that you can also write yourself
> if you want to.  

No. I've written this already. Conclusions based on this have nothing to
do with what I wrote.

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