"Neal H. Walfield" <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Can I rely on this behavior? In particular, can I rely on a > trampoline staying valid until the enclosing function returns? Is the > behavior of trampoline in a compound block specified somewhere? That is a good question, and I agree that it would be good if taking the address of a nested function within a compound expression produced a result which is valid for the rest of the function. As you observed, it currently does work that way. The compiler makes an effort to reuse stack slots of local variables, but makes no such effort for the stack space created for trampolines. However, there is no specification for any of this. I would recommend that you file a bug report with your test case and explanation. The goal would be to include the test case in the gcc testsuite and to update the docs to explicitly permit this use. That is the best way to ensure that the current behaviour does not change in the future. Thanks. Ian
