Daniel Lohmann writes: > Andrew Haley schrieb: > > 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. > > But in this cases it should! C doesn't have type-safe linkage: that is one of its features. C++ is for people who like type-safe linkage. > > I don't know that many people combine C++ and weirdo attributes > > like fastcall. > > You would be surprised. C++ is facing an immense popularity gain in the > embedded systems community. And these people (I am one of them...) often > need a much finer control over code generation. OK. Andrew.
