Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!chem.ucsd.edu!tps From: tps@chem.ucsd.edu (Tom Stockfisch) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C? Message-ID: <238@chem.ucsd.EDU> Date: 13 Jun 88 22:47:32 GMT References: <2742@utastro.UUCP> <225800036@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <522@white.gcm> Reply-To: tps@chem.ucsd.edu (Tom Stockfisch) Organization: Chemistry Dept, UC San Diego Lines: 24 In article <522@white.gcm> dc@white.UUCP (Dave Caswell) writes: >Is it true that some compilers generate inline code for strcpy, fabs >and a host of other functions? How does the compiler know that I will >be linking with the standard library? The scheme used by the compiler on our machine (Celerity 1260D) is to enable inlining only if the library loader flag is given in the command for *compiling* (not just linking). E.g., to get in-line exp(), fabs(), etc., compile as cc -c foopack.c -lm cc main.o foopack.o -lm If you want to define your own fabs(), etc., then compile as cc -c foopack.c cc main.o foopack.o -lm Considering the viability of this scheme (that does not require reservation of any library names) and the undesirability of ecologically disastrous name-space pollution, does anyone know why the ANSI C committee chose to reserve all these names? -- || Tom Stockfisch, UCSD Chemistry tps@chem.ucsd.edu