> > As I said, I'm quite happy just changing our callbacks to be directly > > declared static functions. I just want to check that's what's intended, > > and that there isn't a replacement for/alternative to FT_CALLBACK_DEF() > > that we should be using. > > So, in the absence of any alternative guidance, I'm going with the > change to explicitly define the gs/ft callbacks as static.
Sure! __fastcall is an outdated i386 attribute, so it seems. I do not think we are going to use FT_CALLBACK_DEF anytime soon.
