Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: Function calls Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2023 19:21:27 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 20 Message-ID: <86bkdddd20.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a39e5ee1c6dfe7b41e0e8f641c3ae6d1"; logging-data="788311"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/jbNaF9w0ySKg0cLi4YpI/fNFDLZQoXA4=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:mp1zEmbditPEfR2K0/xCFuvSHJQ= sha1:86wpVc4uNeNJujNotaM/4Dg6ZvQ= Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6579 ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes: > A recent draft of the C specification says about "return": > > |A return statement terminates execution of the current > |function and returns control to its caller. > > . There's also a section "Function calls" in a recent draft. > I expect that this section says something similar, to the effect that > during the evaluation of a function call, control is transferred to > the called function, but I was not able to find such wording! AFAICT the C standard does not say explicitly that a function call gives or transfers control to the function being called. It has been pointed out that the standard does say that calling a function suspends execution of the current block. Considering those facts, do you think there is a problem with the current wording used in the standard? If you do, what would you say the problem is, and why is it a problem?