> I would like to state, for the record, that it is not a matter of >implementation-defined or undefined behavior that cleanup -- or any of >its derivative or similarly-designed counterparts in other languages >-- it is a matter of predictable, well-defined behavior that can >interop in a normal way with other parts of the language.
No, the "feature" in question here gtk is said to rely on rather is like "set a value that is never used". Or more precisely: Assign a value to a variable that is just about going out of scope. It's not wrong to do that, but nobody would say that it"s a common idiom or a normal way of interoperation or an essential part of something well defined. Rather that it can happen at all is probably due to poor design of the cleanup function, i.e. to allow access to the variable via a pointer. There is nothing you can do with this, ... except that you can confuse tcc. -- gr _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
