rwessel (robertwessel@yahoo.com) on 7/2/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>Max (max@a.com) on 7/2/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Michael S (already5chosen@yahoo.com) on 7/1/10 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>I don't think so. AFAIK, the following code is not legal in standard C90.
>>>
>>>int foo(int x)
>>>{
>>>x += 1;
>>>int y = 10 * x;
>>>y += 1;
>>>return y;
>>>}
>>
>>But this is...
>>
>>int foo(int x)
>>{
>>x += 1;
>>{
>>int y = 10 * x;
>>y += 1;
>>return y;
>>}
>>}
>>
>>A pet peeve of mine is that functions are external by default. So you have to declare
>>almost all functions as "static", and if somebody is too lazy to do that you end
>>up with global pollution and worse code (some compiler optimizations can't be done with external functions).
>
>
>IMO, that's not the solution either, although it would help. The problem is that
>static functions only help if you have fairly large source modules. If you try
>to keep source modules fairly small, you tend to need many routines to have external linkage anyway.
>
>A different grouping/namespace mechanism, one that's *not* related to the source
>files, is what's actually required, and the packaging of functions (methods) inside
>of classes in C++ deals with that quite well.
>
>In any event, LTCG is the solution to the optimization issue.

C++ has its own namespace mechanism, orthogonal to OOP/classes, that could be useful in C as well.