Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 12:00:31 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> To: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] An idea for general kernel post-processing automation in FreeBSD Message-ID: <cc078296-76b0-9a27-e037-8a25d1e2e9cd@selasky.org> In-Reply-To: <B8217B6F-DA83-4F90-B87B-37E3397237B2@yahoo.com> References: <2EDDC5DC-81C2-4EB8-B729-66F03A8854E4.ref@yahoo.com> <2EDDC5DC-81C2-4EB8-B729-66F03A8854E4@yahoo.com> <6293f06b-927f-432a-3911-808b1d99441b@selasky.org> <B8217B6F-DA83-4F90-B87B-37E3397237B2@yahoo.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 5/22/23 01:07, Mark Millard wrote:
> In the C language standard, the original had a status of "no linkage"
> and "static storage duration". ("a block scope identifier
> for an object declared without the storage-class specifier
> extern" leads to the "no linkage" status.)
>
> The change still has "static storage duration" but now has "internal
> linkage" status instead. I'm being cautious about the distinction.
>
> (I'm looking at ISO/IEC 9899:2011 (E).)
>
> I've had trouble identifying the match of your wordings to the
> language standard, leaving me unsure of the interpretation to
> give your wording.
>
> I've yet to figure out why internal linkage could end up
> being required, given how the language specifies things.
Hi,
If you find something, let me know. I'll let the issue rest for some days.
--HPS
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cc078296-76b0-9a27-e037-8a25d1e2e9cd>