On 20/03/2025 22:38, Marco van de Voort via fpc-devel wrote:
Op 20-3-2025 om 20:46 schreef Martin Frb via fpc-devel:
So why does the compiler interpret NoStackFrame in the type
declaration, when it does not do that for other non-relevant
modifiers (like assembler)?
I think it is because nostackframe is a directive for the declaration
of the function itself, to tell the stackframe generating code to skip
the stackframe. That is also why it is linked to assembler; directive,
since with assembler the compiler can't auto determine to generate a
stack frame.
It has no relevance to the calling code, so it has no business in a
procedural type declaration.
Maybe take a step back and try to describe what you want to achieve.
Nothing, I just stumbled on it. And wondered.
I know errors aren't necessarily always describing what a user would see
as the error. But in this case, the compiler says that the error is the
omission of another error. That is a novum. (well for me at least).
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
