@Timo, @Thomas, @Ged
Byte order swappers should always be fastcall for perfomance reasons.
They have no need for the benefits of the cdecl call convention.
Using cdecl in this case would make the binary code pitifully slow.
Think about it for a bit.. Some pseudocode show what I mean:
..CDECL...
push hi
push lo
call Swapper
mov dsthi, edx
mov dstlo, eax
add esp, 4
...
// UINT64 __cdecl
Swapper:
push ebp
mov ebp, esp
mov eax, ebp+8 // lo
mov eax, ebp+12 // hi
bswap
xchg eax, edx
bswap
pop ebp
ret
..FASTCALL...
mov edx, hi
mov eax, lo
call Swapper
mov dsthi, edx
mov dstlo, eax
...
// UINT64 __declspec(naked) __fastcall
Swapper:
bswap
xchg eax, edx
bswap
ret
Sadly the compiler designers were not (yet) clever enough
to make the fastcall regs EAX, EDX, ECX, in that exact order,
but even as it stands today..
Swapper:
mov eax, ecx
bswap
xchg eax, edx
bswap
ret
(If you actually link against a binary swapper compiled out of your
control with
cdecl convention, the argument falls of course, as you must comply with
the binary.)
Keep up the good work..
Best Regards
// Love
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
