Message-ID:	<19990630120125.A7635@tabor.ta.jcu.cz>
Date:	Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:01:25 +0200
From:	Jan Hubicka <hubicka AT ta DOT jcu DOT cz>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Regparm and asm statements.. what now?
References:	<3778E043 DOT D8D5F4 AT inti DOT gov DOT ar> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990629184054 DOT 18841S-100000 AT is> <19990629185744 DOT C4792 AT tabor DOT ta DOT jcu DOT cz> <3779C9A1 DOT 35125F69 AT taniwha DOT org>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mutt 0.93i
In-Reply-To:	<3779C9A1.35125F69@taniwha.org>; from Bill Currie on Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 07:39:13PM +1200
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> On archs that use N (usually 4) regs by default (eg i860, pa-risc, most
> risc?), the convention is that the first N parameter words (not
> necessarily parameters themselves, depends on param size) are *ALWAYS*
> passed in the registers (with FP parms being sent in both int and fp
> regs), no matter what, with any additional parameters passed on the
> stack.  The varargs function then has prologue code that saves the
> incoming regs on the stack.  The va_args `macro' does the right thing
> for accessing the incoming params.  I don't know how of even if this can
> be made to work for the i386 (though I don't see why not), but do we
> want to?
Well, this is approx what I want to do in future, but it will definitly not fit
into 2.95.x, so it might take a year or so to come. In meanntime I think
we can live happily with required prototypes for varargs stuff...

Honza
> 
> Anyway, varargs stuff need not be a problem.  So long as the calling
> conventions match, no prototype is truely needed.
> 
> Bill
> -- 
> Leave others their otherness.

- Raw text -