From: nobu.nokada@...
Date: 2001-10-26T04:50:20+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:23341] Re: () vs (...) in header files

At Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:06:58 +0900,
Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> wrote:
> Perhaps a good compromise would be to put rb_thread_wait_for and
> rb_thread_select into their own header, so that if you include intern.h,
> then you don't get the system headers, but if you include the thread
> header, then you do?

Maybe.  It seems better.


> I don't think it's legal to overload functions with C linkage (at least,
> gcc doesn't like it).  Otherwise, that would be a good idea.

gcc 2.96 compiled following code successfully.

//------------------------------
extern "C" void foo(int (*)(...), int);

inline void foo(int (*func)()) {
    foo((int (*)(...))func, 0);
}
inline void foo(int (*func)(int)) {
    foo((int (*)(...))func, 1);
}

int foo0()
{
    return 0;
}
int foo1(int)
{
    return 1;
}

int main()
{
    foo(foo0);
    foo(foo1);
    return 0;
}
//------------------------------


# Sorry that I'll absent and offline for a while.

Nobu Nakada