Daniel Lohmann writes: > Angus schrieb: > > > > BTW, in my opinion it is dangerous. Usually one can rely on > > compile or link errors to catch mismatched function > > characteristics, but with attributes there is no such > > checking. So even if you aren't doing something *really* > > dangerous, like working with virtual methods, you might do what I > > did, and you'll never know about it until you notice you've > > mismatched your attributes. So if you ask me, attributes like > > this one should be used sparingly, and with much caution. > > I would consider this as a significant defect of gcc's attribute handling. > Attributes that change a function to a non-standard calling convention > effectively modify the interface of the function, which should be encoded > into the (mangled) symbol name. Thereby incompatible prototypes on on the > caller and callee side could be detected at link-time. But attributes such as fastcall are used in C programs, and C doesn't do mangling. I don't know that many people combine C++ and weirdo attributes like fastcall. Otherwise it's not such a bad idea, but it is an ABI change: such changes, being non-backwards compatible, are usually unpopular. Andrew.
