Jerome Quelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > While looking at Chromatic's anim_parrot_logo.imc (in examples/sdl), I > was wondering why the includes weren't at the same place. Indeed, the > source reads:
One include is inlined init code, while the other has subroutines. > And two more imcc questions: > - why using .pcc_sub instead of .sub? What is the difference? Which is > best/should be used? They are equivalent in PIR code, plain ".sub" is the prefered syntax. PASM code still needs .pcc_sub _label: to denote a global sub entry. Might be ".entry _label:" somewhen. > - isn't there a kind of "return" imcc op instead of .pcc_begin_return / > .pcc_end_return. .macro .ret_void .pcc_begin_return .pcc_end_return .endm should do it. > ... I found the .return imcc op in imcc/README but it > fails with "error:imcc:parse error, unexpected '\n'". Is it to be used > only when returning something (ie, returning nothing isn't allowed?) .return item is used inside above return pairs to return something from the sub. > Jérôme leo
