Re: "standard" C calling convention? (Nick Maclaren)
14 Mar 2003 11:06:58 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[10 earlier articles]
Re: "standard" C calling convention? (2003-02-24)
Re: "standard" C calling convention? (2003-02-24)
Re: "standard" C calling convention? (Glen Herrmannsfeldt) (2003-02-24)
Re: "standard" C calling convention? (Marco van de Voort) (2003-02-24)
Re: "standard" C calling convention? (2003-03-09)
Re: "standard" C calling convention? (Mike Ludwig) (2003-03-09)
Re: "standard" C calling convention? (2003-03-14)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 14 Mar 2003 11:06:58 -0500
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
References: 03-02-072 03-02-086 03-03-023
Keywords: C, standards
Posted-Date: 14 Mar 2003 11:06:57 EST (Marco van de Voort) writes:
|> > A better way of putting that would be that C requires that without any
|> > extra data describing the parameters. (like number, type etc).
|> > [K&R C did. ANSI C requires that varargs routines be declared that way,
|> > so the caller and callee can conspire to pass extra info if needed. -John]
|> The current "normal" calling convention in C is the only one afaik that
|> allows variabele number of parameters without extra invisible data.

Which convention is that?

Whichever you mean, it is not so. There are several such methods
that I have seen used, in addition to others that can be thought of.

Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.