Compiler Specific Operators

[peters at cubsvax.UUCP]

In article <phri.2391> roy at phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
>[Regarding compilers replacing calls to library routines with in-line code]

>	What if you want to trap and/or trace subroutine calls for
>diagnostic or tuning purposes...
Then you're no worse off than tracing or timing portions of your own in-line 
code.

>			... or you want to supply your own version of the
>library routine because it's faster, more accurate, or more featureful?
Use a #define to a new name, or code in a new name (one of these is probably
best), or disenable in-line expansion of code by means of a compile-time flag.  
(In one of my postings I suggested that such a flag be available, but it's 
probably not really necessary.)  Another possibility: if the compiler knew 
about things like sin(x), then the -lm flag would not be necessary in programs 
that "call" it; thus specifying -lm could over-ride in-line expansion....

Peter S. Shenkin	 Columbia Univ. Biology Dept., NY, NY  10027
{philabs,rna}!cubsvax!peters		cubsvax!peters at columbia.ARPA