Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 15:37:21 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: guido@gvr.win.tue.nl (Guido van Rooij) Cc: terry@lambert.org, FreeBSD-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gcc question Message-ID: <199703042237.PAA10555@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199703042130.WAA03370@gvr.win.tue.nl> from "Guido van Rooij" at Mar 4, 97 10:30:12 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > > I still interface between the two, without having to write a wrapper > > > > > (becasue I think that is ugly). > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Then you must create a stub function, eg: > > What I meant was isn't there an __whatever__ function attruibute that does > this. You mean "acts as if there were a prototype in scope for -traditional compilations"? No. It is not an attribute in the object file; it's a question of how arguments are pushed an popped with a prototype in scope and not in scope. Since ANSI does not *require* prototypes be used... why can't you dispense with -traditional? What behaviour are you depending on? You aren't going to change the way the stack is framed by caller vs. the way it is framed by callee without a stub function (or compiling the caller and callee in the same context). Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703042237.PAA10555>