On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 18:41 +0800, Paul Ishenin wrote: > 21.07.2010 17:41, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > >> How Kylix handles the safecall convention on linux? I think we need > >> to follow it. > > Is it an idea to change the 'safecall' convention on Linux/i386 to be > > > > Well, > > > > Safecall = cdecl for Kylix. > > > > Borland decided to do this instead of giving a compiler error. > > But since Kylix is long dead, I don't see the need to follow it in > > this detail. Or do you know a lot of kylix programs/code/libraries out > > there ? > When (if) codegear release the new linux compiler I think they reuse > their kylix work. So if we follow the kylix way now we will protect the > compiler from the unneeded changes in the future. > > Is there a big difference for fpc to call the new calling convention > different and map it to safecall on windows?
I don't think we have to look at Kylix in this regard. When Kylix was released there was no such thing as 'com/activex' on Linux, so the whole safecall thing was useless. Only now there is xpcom it gets a meaning. Joost _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - [email protected] http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
