From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Feb 15 17:13:50 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA00875
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:13:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chai.plexuscom.com (chai.plexuscom.com [207.87.46.100])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA00869
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chai.plexuscom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chai.plexuscom.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA00533; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 20:14:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199702160114.UAA00533@chai.plexuscom.com>
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: G++ calling conventions 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 15 Feb 1997 13:52:50 MST."
             <199702152052.NAA03985@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 20:14:33 -0500
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@torrentnet.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Does anyone know if gcc and/or g++ support the __stdcall type
> designator?

Yes (according to info gcc).

> PS: What would be the chances of supporting the "interface" keyword
>     as an alias for "struct" in a future release?  This can be done
>     in a FreeBSD-specific way using the g++ config data files (I think).

If you think this keyword has value, why don't you suggest it to the
gcc people?  Adding it just to freebsd guarantees yet another #ifdef
(if you write portable code using it).  Though, IMHO, adding the
`interface' keyword is not likely to make your code any more
readable -- C++ is just too gross.  Check out Beta for an example of
a consistent and powerful O-O language.