From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac02560f0af03a21
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-26 10:21:22 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!zeus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!199.184.165.244.MISMATCH!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail
Reply-To: "Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.FrankLho@rcn.com>
From: "Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.FrankLho@rcn.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: 
 <pan.2003.12.26.10.37.14.290567@n_o_p_o_r_k_a_n_d_h_a_m.abyss2.demon.co.uk>
 <3FEC43B2.5080606@noplace.com> <1072450300.440355@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <3FEC4E89.2070804@noplace.com>
 <pan.2003.12.26.15.39.28.529093@n_o_p_o_r_k_a_n_d_h_a_m.abyss2.demon.co.uk>
 <1072458199.346049@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <pan.2003.12.26.17.08.27.898789@n_o_p_o_r_k_a_n_d_h_a_m.abyss2.demon.co.uk>
 <pan.2003.12.26.17.27.26.494317@n_o_p_o_r_k_a_n_d_h_a_m.abyss2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: GNAT parameter passing, C-style?
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:21:18 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <3fec7c21$0$4764$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.6.176.101
X-Trace: 1072462881 reader3.news.rcn.net 4764 209.6.176.101:1737
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3821
Date: 2003-12-26T13:21:18-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Luke A. Guest" <laguest@n_o_p_o_r_k_a_n_d_h_a_m.abyss2.demon.co.uk> wrote
in message
news:pan.2003.12.26.17.27.26.494317@n_o_p_o_r_k_a_n_d_h_a_m.abyss2.demon.co.uk...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:08:27 +0000, Luke A. Guest wrote:
> Just checked in there, but couldn't see it. Can't remember where I saw it
> then. Maybe it was a compiler book?

I don't believe it was stated explicitly, but the standard C calling
convention (arguments pushed on the stack in reverse order, and popped off
by the callee) is implied by the requirements for variable argument
functions. Even with C++, the C calling convention is still used for any
function / method that takes a variable list of arguments, i.e. with "..."
in its parameter list. Of course, it is also strongly recommended that you
avoid variable argument lists in C++.