Re: calling convention stdcalll and cdecl call
* Liviu:
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alfps@start.no> wrote
* Igor Tandetnik:
Alf P. Steinbach <alfps@start.no> wrote:
* Igor Tandetnik:
printf("%d", 1, 2);
For what it's worth the above example (1) has undefined behavior
Nope, behavior is both defined and expected (prints 1, excess arguments
are evaluated but ignored).
In C99. Thanks, I didn't know. Do you have C89 standard?
You might be thinking at "printf("%d");" but even in that case the
"undefinededness" is particular to printf, and has nothing to do with
calling conventions for variadic functions in general.
It had to do with a minor point that Igor may or may not have been trying to
make, who knows since evidently he doesn't mean what he writes.
But just to address what you say, although unrelated to original context: I'm
sorry, but that's incorrect, i.e. contrary to your claim the behavior of printf
has to do with calling conventions for variadic functions in general.
C99 printf directly supports a functionally limited and generally inefficient
calling convention (C-style) and for printf, makes the case that that convention
doesn't handle, undefined behavior.
Didn't follow the
thread in all its glorious detail. but if you are trying to make the
point that a callee can "magically guess" the number of arguments pushed
on the stack by the caller (without hidden parameters or additional
overhead like standard stack "frames"), then that's so obviously wrong.
Yeah, it's clear that you haven't followed the thread. I replied originally to
Igor by posting complete C++ plus assembly language code for an example of
__stdcall variadic arguments. Showing that his claim that it was impossible, was
simply incorrect.
Since then a number of idiotic claims and positions, such as the one you
describe, have been argued against, /as if/ they had been claims I made, plus
that evidently I have been complaining, plus thinking my ways are "better", +++.
I made only one claim, and proved it, that Igor's claim was 100% incorrect. Any
other claims attributed to me are just deception, weaseling. I don't understand
how it can be so hard for some to admit they made an error, but evidently it is.
Cheers,
- Alf
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?