Which spec has defined the calling sequence of static C functions (like the extern C functions' has been defined in the Sys V ABI specs)?

[Remus Clearwater]

Thank you very much for answering my question :-)

> B is correct. We don't care about function pointers because we know if a
> static function has its address takes in the same compilation unit in
> which it appears. If it has not had its address taken, we don't have
> to care about the system ABI. If it has, then we need to use the system
> ABI.

> If the address of the static function been taken and then we need to use
the
> system ABI.

Does such action has been documented somewhere inside GCC or as an
undocumented convention? Or further, even as an undocumented convention
inside all the many mainstream C compilers (GCC, clang ...)?

Furthermore, could I make the following conclusion under GCC and Linux?
Conclusion:

   For the "calling" of the C static functions, it has only two
possibilities -- either it's been inlined by the compiler optimization
(i.e. not actually been called by the `call` instruction but been optimized
for the reason of speed), Or it would be actually called (with the `call`
instruction) under the "Function Calling Sequence" constraints which have
been described in the Sys V ABI specs (same as the calling of those extern
C functions).

Thanks a lot.

On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 5:29 AM Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 12/29/18 12:53 PM, Remus Clearwater wrote:
> > B. The calling of those un-inlined static C functions does not have to
> > comply with the function calling sequence defined in the ABI spec. And
> > because the calling of the function pointers which are pointing to the
> > static C functions has to work correctly as the C standard described, so
> it
> > is the compiler's free will to decide any "calling sequence" that as long
> > as could satisfy both the Sys V ABI and the C standard.
>
> B is correct. We don't care about function pointers because we know if a
> static function has its address takes in the same compilation unit in
> which it appears. If it has not had its address taken, we don't have
> to care about the system ABI. If it has, then we need to use the system
> ABI.
>
> --
> Andrew Haley
> Java Platform Lead Engineer
> Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
>