Re: Eliminating nested functions

[Christian Franke <Christian.Franke@t-online.de>]

Pavel Roskin wrote:
> I suggest that we eliminate all nested functions.  The reasons are:
>
> 1) They make the code less readable, as they make the parent functions
> longer.
>
> 2) They have problems with some popular compilers, as recent as gcc-4.0
> when regparm(3) is used.
>
> 3) We failed to implement a reliable test for such problems.  We are
> using regparm(1) for all compilers.
>
> 4) The existing test is one of the obstacles making it impossible to
> compile without having libc for the target (x86_64->i386 would be really
> nice), as we need to run the compiled test executable.
>
> 5) Non-i386 architectures define NESTED_FUNC_ATTR as an empty symbol, so
> developers on such architectures don't see if they use it correctly.
>
> 6) NESTED_FUNC_ATTR tends to proliferate to the file scope functions, as
> it happened with grub_pci_iterate().  It only takes one caller using a
> nested function to force NESTED_FUNC_ATTR on all functions used as an
> argument to the same function.
>
>   

7) The grub utils may not run on some 'security hardened' platform which 
does not allow to enable stack execution.


-- 
Christian Franke