ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:

>jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock) writes:
>
>> So that taking the address of a nested function in different scopes
>> causes differing trampolines to be created, and differing pointers returned?

Yes.

>It shouldn't need to do that.  At most one trampoline is ever necessary
>for a given nested function during its lifetime, namely the one that
>binds the lexically surrounding context that was current when the
>block containing the definition of that function was entered.

But that block may be entered multiple times, recursively, in which case
you need more than one trampoline for a single nested function.

(Jim's article still hasn't arrived here yet, so perhaps I am missing some
important context?)

--
Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU
This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but
you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
.signature file!

In article <9234805.9274@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) writes:

> But that block may be entered multiple times, recursively, in which case
> you need more than one trampoline for a single nested function.

But each function binds a different context, so it should be
considered a different function anyway -- just like local variables.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@europa.att.com