[fpc-pascal] rotating bits

[ϸ�� ����������� � mail.ru]

>> First parameter is in eax, second in edx (third one is ecx)
TH> Yes, of course, sorry for confusion... :-( Anyway, loading of the first
TH> parameter can be still skipped (and the stack frame is probably not useful
TH> in this case either). So you'd get:
TH> function brol(b: byte; c: byte): byte; assembler; nostackframe;
TH> asm
TH>   movb  %dl,%cl
TH>   rolb  %cl,%al
TH> end ['cl'];
TH> Tomas

1. So, is there any problem with including this functions and bit checks
(bt./bs. in intel assembler: writing (a and (1 shl i)) isn't great too)?

2. Are calling conventions a subject to change? Are there ways to know
about calling convention used (with {$ifdefs} e.g.)?