Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| [8 earlier articles] |
| 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: | marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 9 Mar 2003 17:25:43 -0500 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 03-02-072 03-02-086 |
| Keywords: | C, standards |
| Posted-Date: | 09 Mar 2003 17:25:43 EST |
> > 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.
This however doesn't mean that a more elaborate and safe variable parameter
system could be implemented using the same calling convention.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.