Sender: root AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <3778F985.F00187AC@inti.gov.ar>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:51:17 -0300
From: salvador <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization: INTI
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i686)
X-Accept-Language: es-AR, en, es
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Regparm and asm statements.. what now?
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990629184054 DOT 18841S-100000 AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, salvador wrote:
>
> > > It has little chance of replacing the default libraries, simply
> > > because every third-party toolkit out there would have to be
> > > recompiled to match it.
> >
> > No if you specify the calling convention in the headers, which BTW should be
> > specified anyways!
>
> What happens if someone compiles a program without including the headers
> that declare the prototype?

Is your fault!

> According to ANSI C, users can legitimately do that, and still assume
> they get a working program.

It doesn't help anybody. I don't say defaulting to regparm=3 is good idea, but
the current libc headers are very problematic. If the user compiles with
regparm=3, or pascal calling conventions the program won't run.
I think the libc should be compiled in the default calling convention of gcc, but
it doesn't invalidate the fact that headers should say why the library was
compiled.

SET

--
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Visit my home page: http://welcome.to/SetSoft or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Alternative e-mail: set-soft AT usa DOT net set AT computer DOT org
                    set AT ieee DOT org set-soft AT bigfoot DOT com
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA Phone: +(5411) 4759 0013