Hello Joost, Thursday, July 22, 2010, 5:57:27 PM, you wrote:
>> Even if declarations in the code are wrong (which I had not checked, I >> assumed they were fine) the "const" behavior with record in Windows >> safecall and linux cdecl is different. JvdS> Offcourse the behaviour is different for a different calling convention JvdS> and OS. That's perfectly normal. If all calling conventions were the JvdS> same, we woudn't have them. Yes, but I think, maybe I'm wrong, that a cdecl declaration in any platform matches the same behavior in other platform. This means that: procedure (a: pointer); cdecl; is expected to produce the same effect (not internal implementation) in any platform. So: procedure (const a: record); safecall; in Unix will produce a copy of "a" and in Windows a reference to "a" which is not very portability friendly. Anyway I think the problem is on the XPCOM guys, as they decide to "define" safecall with different meanings in different platforms, so in Windows it is "stdcall safecall" and in Unix "cdecl safecall" (safecall referenced to the postprocessing of nsResult). To me it smells like everything was designed in Linux and later they decide to mimic the Windows Activex in the windows world. Anyway whichever you decide is OK to me. -- Best regards, José _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
