4 ms·
OP here. This is not actually compliant with the C standard, just a gcc extension. It is documented at [1] and according to the documentation, the code seems p
by rhambasan 11y ago
OP here.
This is not actually compliant with the C standard, just a gcc extension.
It is documented at [1] and according to the documentation, the code seems perfectly legal.
However, calling it twice
add5(2); add5(2);
leads to an "Illegal instruction. Core dumped"
Even stranger, calling it twice but with a different argument leads to a a segfault instead of illegal instruction:
add5(5); add5(5);
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Nested-Functions.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Nested-Functions.html
- cremno 11y agoThat isn't strange. From the linked page: >But this technique works only so long as the containing function (hack, in this example) does not exit.