Re: [Tinycc-devel] tcc_relocate() and tcc_relocate_ex()

[grischka]

Michael Matz wrote:
> You earnestly added this interface abomination to avoid exporting a 
> function?    Well, as you asked: yes it's ugly, and yes it's 
> confusing.  (and it's also non-C, ((void*)-1) might not be 
> representable; the only integer literal that definitely is convertible 
> into a pointer is 0; but I'll admit that this would just be a nitpick).  
> But why you think this interface would be better than an explicit one 
> with two functions is a complete mystery to me.  I mean, really, can you 
> give a reason?  I'm seriously interested.

So you seriously wanted to export the wrapper AND its subroutine?
I mean, after all, an API is an abstraction layer and not a
self-service store.

Anyhow, I think it is not more complex/ugly/confusing than the
alternative.  We would need to show users:
 - the "abomination" just minus the TCC_RELOCATE_AUTO part
 - plus the declaration of tcc_relocate + usage comment
 - some hint at least how the two functions relate to each other

So, my reasons, short version: Smaller libtcc.h

--- grischka

> Ciao,
> Michael.