Re: calling convention stdcalll and cdecl call
* Liviu:
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alfps@start.no> wrote in message
news:sfKdnW8tnNsu2xzVnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@posted.comnet...
* Liviu:
Please note that once you impose additional requirements on the
caller
code (pass number of params, set some sort of stack frame, etc) then
that's no longer the __stdcall convention.
Sorry, I didn't see that. That's too stupid for my limited English
vocabulary. Do you think we're engaged in some children's "guess my
riddle"?
Anyways, we were discussing a statement that stdcall convention *could
not* support varargs: "thus, ...".
Let's just rephrase that to "__stdcall can technically call any random
memory address, including that of a variadic function, except it's not
safe to do so and will crash more often than not" ;-)
Like, if two people disagree about the temperature on the surface of the Sun,
one person correctly saying it's about 6000 degrees C, the other that it's tens
of millions of degrees, a compromise of about 100 000 degrees would be correct.
Well, of course it isn't: for technical issues and physical issues and math
issues and so on, compromise answers aren't good at all. They're at most good
for getting people to get along. And nothing much else, can even have negative
effects, especially if you send people into an area based on compromise idiocy.
So, your rephrasing compromise above is simply not correct. If you omit a
required argument when you call a routine, then you have Undefined Behavior
whether that routine is cdecl or stdcall. Conversely, if you do everything
Right, then that call is OK whether the routine is cdecl or stdcall.
This talk about "not safe" and "will crash [sometimes]", it's just attempted FUD
(spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt); technically *incorrect*, appealing to
emotions.
From my point of view that attempt at FUD is pure idiocy.
Then it's completely false and misleading to snub any counter-example
by "that's not stdcall as I know it".
You forgot a comma after stdcall ;-)
Nope.
That argument is "I define stdcall as a convention that can't support
vargarg, therefore, it can't". Do you see how stupid that is? Well,
probably not. But it is, it's below a snail's level of intelligence.
It's been a long day, and the OP's question was fully answered long ago.
No reason to waste your time, indeed.
I don't think George's question has been fully answered as long as e.g. you are
still posting technically incorrect statements in this thread.
George, assuming he's human ;-), must be wondering whether e.g. your postings
could contain some grain of truth, that perhaps there's something there.
But there isn't.
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?