Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news3 From: Michael Wojcik Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcm9pZOKAlFdoeSBEYWx2aWs/?= Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:06:35 -0400 Organization: Micro Focus Lines: 52 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: p5b77c88983e3b1cb1e5218e738a95cf0a4a78b34b5e8edda.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4952 BGB wrote: > On 6/3/2011 6:40 AM, Michael Wojcik wrote: >> BGB wrote: >>> >>> yeah... sadly, the C ABI is a little bit prone to variations >> >> There is no "C ABI". If you believe otherwise, please cite the >> appropriate language from ISO/IEC 9899. I'll accept any version. => > more like "there is no universal standardized C ABI...", and nothing is > stated in the C standards to this effect, but, there ARE C-ABIs... Wrong. Those are platform ABIs. They have nothing to do with C, a language defined by ISO/IEC 9899, and not by implementations thereof or their dependencies. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions > > note also: > http://agner.org./optimize/calling_conventions.pdf Neither of which have anything to do with C. > much like there is a C++ ABI (or more correctly, many C++ ABIs...). Yes, insofar as there is no C++ ABI (much less "many C++ ABIs"). > but, the "standardized" (in a largely de-facto sense) ABI for C on > 32-bit x86 is commonly known as cdecl, but it has other names. Microsoft's cdecl calling convention for Windows has nothing to do with C, despite the name. > in its common form: Details are irrelevant. And feel free to devote similar efforts to your grandmother's egg-sucking edification; I've been dealing with the inner details of various ABIs for a quarter-century. > now, the issue is that not all compilers exactly agree on all the > details, and these subtle differences can at times break code linked > together from different compilers... No, the issue is that you apparently don't know what is and is not part of the C language, and that you have a regrettable tendency to wander off into irrelevant tangents. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University