Alastair Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I thought we established that generating valid C prototypes from the > > Haskell FFI type signature wasn't possible due to the incompleteness > > of the Haskell type (lack of 'const' modifiers for one thing - is > > there anything else?). > > Compilers use the same calling sequence whether you tell them about > const or not. > > I believe that we can call all C functions correctly knowing only the > calling convention (ccall, stdcall, etc) and the Haskell type. I > certainly hope this is true since Hugs' implementation of wrappers > depends on it. > > (Hmmm, some calling conventions do funny things when passing and > returning small structs. I don't know much about this though...)
I think some ABI's specify a different calling convention for varargs functions than non-varargs functions. (I remember reading this on some Haskell mailing list some time back, one of the previous times this same discussion occurred.) Carl Witty _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
