Daniel Lohmann-2 wrote: > > Angus schrieb: >> >> Andrew Haley-5 wrote: >> >> 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. > > Other compilers, such as Visual C++, do this. Modifiers different than the > default calling convention become mangled into the resulting linker > symbol. > > Daniel > > The fastcall and stdcall for windows target's on GCC are decorated. See > gcc/config/i386/winnt.c: > i386_pe_mangle_decl_assembler_name > Danny > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-fastcall-broken--tf3995991.html#a11377169 Sent from the gcc - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
