On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
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.
Exactly.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
