some externals are declared twice with different signatures

[pchickey]

In lib/externals.blk the functions copy_complex16, copy_complex32, copy_int16, and copy_int32 are each declared twice - in lines 134-137 and again in lines 143-146, with different signatures - the first set returns (), the second set returns int.

I assume only one of these sets of declarations is correct. Which one?

(I don't know enough about the blk language but perhaps it should also be a bug that this wasn't caught statically.)

[bradunov]

Good catch. Both are fine, but a compiler should catch this. And strictly speaking, the return should be (). I think that for some reason when a function returns () it is compiled in C as if it returns int32 and that int32 is not used. If you look at csrc/ext_arr.c, this is what happens, and the return is ignored. I think we should leave the declaration returning (), as the output should not be used, and fix the error catching.

[pchickey]

Thanks - I'll fix externals.blk myself and leave it up to someone else to look into the compiler.

The C compiler could have caught this issue except that the int and int32 sizes are the same on this platform, so multiple declarations of the same symbol is not reported.

[edsko]

See also #51.