Related articles |
---|
"standard" C calling convention? peter@javamonkey.com (Peter Seibel) (2003-02-12) |
Re: "standard" C calling convention? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-02-13) |
Re: "standard" C calling convention? jgd@cix.co.uk (2003-02-13) |
Re: "standard" C calling convention? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (Glen Herrmannsfeldt) (2003-02-13) |
Re: "standard" C calling convention? lars@bearnip.com (2003-02-13) |
Re: "standard" C calling convention? dmr@bell-labs.com (Dennis Ritchie) (2003-02-21) |
Re: "standard" C calling convention? christian.bau@cbau.freeserve.co.uk (Christian Bau) (2003-02-21) |
Re: "standard" C calling convention? mgl8@attbi.com (Mike Ludwig) (2003-02-21) |
Re: "standard" C calling convention? sander@haldjas.folklore.ee (Sander Vesik) (2003-02-21) |
Re: "standard" C calling convention? andrew.higham@blueyonder.co.uk (Andrew) (2003-02-21) |
Re: "standard" C calling convention? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-02-24) |
[6 later articles] |
From: | lars@bearnip.com (Lars Duening) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 13 Feb 2003 00:50:18 -0500 |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | 03-02-072 |
Keywords: | performance, C |
Posted-Date: | 13 Feb 2003 00:50:17 EST |
Peter Seibel <peter@javamonkey.com> wrote:
> People often refer to the "standard C calling convention", usually
> as opposed to some other calling convention that a compiler also
> supports.
As our moderator already pointed out, calling conventions define how
values are passed between functions (register and stacklayout).
In addition, a second meaning of "standard C calling convention" is
that it is the caller which is responsible for removing the arguments
from the stack after the function call returns. This is in contrast to
the "Pascal calling convention", which leaves it to the called
function to remove the arguments before it returns.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.