>If you want to be lazy about your naked functions, you could also just declare them as __sdccoldcall.
I don't see this defined in the manual. What does it do? Why are you saying it's lazy? I'm writing asm that matches the calling convention that has been standard since I've started using sdcc. This is lazy why? Also why say one of your strongest adopters and proponents is lazy on a public email thread asking a simple question? On Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 3:04 AM Philipp Klaus Krause <p...@spth.de> wrote: > Am 30.07.21 um 21:40 schrieb Ben Ferguson: > > I am in favor of adding a cli option to enable the old calling method. > > > > This change can break nearly every naked member we have if I understand > > correctly, and without clear notice we may be compiling code for the old > > convention, which will just cause huge headaches. > > > If you want to be lazy about your naked functions, you could also just > declare them as __sdccoldcall. > > > Which convention used is not important to me, but I wonder what the > > cause for the change is. Is it faster somehow? > > > > In my experiments, is is both faster and gives smaller code size > (typically - of course you can construct individual example programs > where the old convention is better). > > Philipp > > > _______________________________________________ > Sdcc-user mailing list > Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user >
_______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
