[fpc-devel] Safecall on Linux (and other unices?)
Joost van der Sluis
joost at cnoc.nl
Wed Jul 21 12:51:45 CEST 2010
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 18:41 +0800, Paul Ishenin wrote:
> 21.07.2010 17:41, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >> How Kylix handles the safecall convention on linux? I think we need
> >> to follow it.
> > Is it an idea to change the 'safecall' convention on Linux/i386 to be
> > Well,
> > Safecall = cdecl for Kylix.
> > Borland decided to do this instead of giving a compiler error.
> > But since Kylix is long dead, I don't see the need to follow it in
> > this detail. Or do you know a lot of kylix programs/code/libraries out
> > there ?
> When (if) codegear release the new linux compiler I think they reuse
> their kylix work. So if we follow the kylix way now we will protect the
> compiler from the unneeded changes in the future.
> Is there a big difference for fpc to call the new calling convention
> different and map it to safecall on windows?
I don't think we have to look at Kylix in this regard. When Kylix was
released there was no such thing as 'com/activex' on Linux, so the whole
safecall thing was useless. Only now there is xpcom it gets a meaning.
More information about the fpc-devel