On Feb 16, 2008 2:00 AM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another issue (I should report it as a bug imho) is that Do_Syscall is > > not really usable if you require to use different parameters then > > integer value, for example: PChar. > > > I think that the entire design of the Do_SysCall is malformed in the > > way it assumes the number of parameters and also the type of them, so > > as I asked before, how I can either call the syscall command without > > assembler, or how I can pass an array of const (prior to that I asked > > regarding array of TSysParam) to assembly if three is no other way to > > use syscall ? > > So we can write you up as volunteer to write up prototypes (and worse > maintain them) for about 300 calls per OS per arch?
So what you are saying is, that because there are many commands that can be used by syscall, you prefer to give support only to the ones that actually in use by most programs, rather then to write something more general that will support everything, and will do it right ? Sorry but I still don't understand... The problem is the design/approach of the way syscall is implemented in FPC, while you are saying that because there are so many OS/commands that each use it differently, you just want to leave it as-is because it works for you ... So according to what you say, I can either mark that there is no support for syscall in FPC (half work for most of the times is not enough, it's just wrong desgin), or I don't understand whats going on. Ido -- http://ik.homelinux.org/ _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
