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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2cb1f0b6d642e1dc
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Pascal Calling Convention
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:20:40 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Message-ID: <lnipv89vg7.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
References: <9b04626e-567d-408c-aab3-39b964b3ffd6@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
	<op.vstkpc1rule2fv@index.ici> <ime30d$rrk$1@munin.nbi.dk>
	<op.vstobjtxule2fv@index.ici>
	<F8mdnYCca6tRJBfQnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: mx01.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="mytEQcPL+ceHcrnNa7VoaQ";
	logging-data="585"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/aNvQTjihQhkNgn1EFMQqx"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1GFteNUo2LYBQTD20bLQ6p8Ep2I=
	sha1:Xmk+hk0X/njjVtN0ZMzLw9I4JNM=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18433
Date: 2011-03-24T12:20:40-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:43:57 +0100, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
> <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> declaimed the following in comp.lang.ada:
>
>> [ebp+0] := ... [ebp+4] := ... and so on. But I feel to remember parameter  
>> passing order for WinAPI is the reversed one than C. I will have a test  
>> tomorrow to check (I am not running Windows right now).
>
> 	Could it be (hypothesis) that it is the parameter /evaluation/ order
> which is reversed?
>
> 	That is, does
>
> 	i = 0;
> 	someC(i++, i++, i++);
>
> produce
> 		(0, 1, 2)
> or
> 		(2, 1, 0)

On my system, it produced (2, 1, 0), but this doesn't mean anything.
In C, the order of evaluation of function arguments is explicitly
unspecified.  Furthermore, in this particular case, the multiple
modifications to the same object without an intervening sequence
point mean that the behavior of the program is undefined; it
could legitimately print "a suffusion of yellow" or cause your
keyboard to explode.  (C's "undefined behavior" is very much like
Ada's "erroneous execution" -- and IMHO C chose a better term to
describe it.)

Furthermore, the order of evaluation of the argument expressions
isn't *necessarily* related to the order in which the results are
pushed onto the stack (assuming there even is a stack).

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"