sergio masci wrote:

>>> 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.
> 
> Yes Gerhard as Olin says you do seem to want intrinsic functions that
> you can also write yourself if you want to. 
> 
> This is not a bad thing, just incredibly difficult to achive
> efficiently. By which I mean have a modern PC capable of generating
> an executable from such a compiler in an acceptable time. 
> 
> By definition, intrinsic means that the compiler understands what
> these functions do and how they do it. 

I already wrote a few times that what I'm thinking are functions for
which the compiler writer knows what they do, but not necessarily how
they do it (that is, they may be implemented in a library, not
necessarily by the compiler)?

> But this would still be intrinsic to the compiler because the compiler 
> has a preconceived idea of what the function does and the actual source 
> code for the function would not change this idea.

Calling a function with a standard interface ("preconceived idea of what
it does") and an implementation in a library for which source code is
available "intrinsic" is against every common use of this word.
Including against your own... you already said that you don't consider
the C++ function std::list::insert an intrinsic function. But it's this
type of function that I'm talking about.

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