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 11:06:04 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" From: "Frank J. Lhota" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3FEC43B2.5080606@noplace.com> <1072450300.440355@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3FEC4E89.2070804@noplace.com> <1072458199.346049@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3fec7c21$0$4764$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: GNAT parameter passing, C-style? Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:06:00 -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: <3fec869c$0$4744$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.6.176.101 X-Trace: 1072465564 reader3.news.rcn.net 4744 209.6.176.101:1908 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3826 Date: 2003-12-26T14:06:00-05:00 List-Id: "Frank J. Lhota" wrote in message news:3fec7c21$0$4764$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > "Luke A. Guest" 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 I should have said "... and popped off by the caller". My mistake, and I cannot blame my spell checker for this one. > 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++. > >