Re: "standard" C calling convention?

Marco van de Voort <marcov@toad.stack.nl>
24 Feb 2003 17:42:29 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[7 earlier articles]
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)
Re: "standard" C calling convention? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-02-24)
Re: "standard" C calling convention? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (Glen Herrmannsfeldt) (2003-02-24)
Re: "standard" C calling convention? marcov@toad.stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2003-02-24)
Re: "standard" C calling convention? marcov@stack.nl (2003-03-09)
Re: "standard" C calling convention? mgl8@attbi.com (Mike Ludwig) (2003-03-09)
Re: "standard" C calling convention? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-03-14)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Marco van de Voort <marcov@toad.stack.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 24 Feb 2003 17:42:29 -0500
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
References: 03-02-072 03-02-086 03-02-091
Keywords: C, design
Posted-Date: 24 Feb 2003 17:42:29 EST

Christian Bau wrote:
>> Well, many OS have somewhat of a standard, and C programs on that
>> OS may or may not use it. C requires the ability to call with a
>> variable number of arguments, which restricts somewhat the
>> allowable calling conventions


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]



Post a followup to this message

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