Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com
Message-Id: <199908262350.SAA19081@mercury.xraylith.wisc.edu>
To: "Chris Telting" <telting@sprynet.com>
cc: "Emanuele Aliberti" <ealiberti@hotmail.com>, cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Cygwin NT DDK Project 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:40:18 PDT."
             <005901bef01c$9e94b950$26c256d1@hercules> 
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:50:05 -0500
From: Mumit Khan <khan@xraylith.wisc.EDU>

"Chris Telting" <telting@sprynet.com> writes:
> 
> 
> That's all that's needed?  It only requires a keyword and code to generate
> the fastcalls which is minimal.  Even I can do that.  If that's what's
> needed then
> I volunteer to do it myself.  I also know as a fact that the linker needs to
> be
> changed.

I had an implementation of fastcall a long time ago, but never added it
since nobody asked for it. I can dig it out and send it to you if you
want to play with it. It requires a change to the backend to handle
the special calling convention (from what I remember, it was a cross
between regparm and stdcall), but as far as I can tell, no change 
to linker necessary. Could you please explain why you think the linker 
needs to be changed to support it?

> There actually needs to be a flag set in the pe header in order for it to be
> a
> valid but again that's minimal.

Please elaborate why fastcall requires PE header flag change. I'm going
through the MSDN docs right now, but that always takes a while. Pointers
welcome.

Regards,
Mumit


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com