Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| 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) |
| 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]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.