Havoc Pennington wrote: > "Peter Garner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Really? Thanks for the heads up!!! > > The return value has to be stored in memory somewhere; if the compiler > thinks there is no return value when invoking the function pointer it > doesn't have to make that memory. But if the function being invoked > has a return value it will put the return value there anyway. Actually, it's very common for integal return values to be left in a register, not in memory. So returning a value would not cause memory corruption. For example, on x86, gcc leaves the return value in the EAX register. -- Paul Carter [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [http://www.comsc.ucok.edu/~pcarter] -- To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
- [gtk-list] Re: Apprarently simple signal/event question Peter Garner
- [gtk-list] Re: Apprarently simple signal/event quest... Havoc Pennington
- [gtk-list] Re: Apprarently simple signal/event q... Paul Carter
- [gtk-list] Re: Apprarently simple signal/eve... Havoc Pennington
- [gtk-list] Re: Apprarently simple signal... Joe Pfeiffer
- [gtk-list] Re: Apprarently simple signal... Lars Hallberg
- [gtk-list] Re: Apprarently simple signal/event q... RNG
- [gtk-list] Re: Apprarently simple signal/eve... Joe Pfeiffer
- [gtk-list] Re: Apprarently simple signal... M. David Krauss
- [gtk-list] Re: Apprarently simple signal/eve... Havoc Pennington
- [gtk-list] Re: Apprarently simple signal/event quest... Peter Wright
- [gtk-list] Re: Apprarently simple signal/event q... Havoc Pennington
