RE: [MiNT] MiNTLib 0.51

["Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>]

> From: owner-mint@fishpool.com [mailto:owner-mint@fishpool.com]On Behalf
> Of Guido Flohr
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 6:45 PM
> To: MiNT mailing list
> Subject: Re: [MiNT] MiNTLib 0.51
>
>
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 12:33:52AM +0200, Michael Schwingen wrote:
> > On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 03:01:12AM +0200, Guido Flohr wrote:
> > >
> > > P.S.: To return to the question, the code is ugly because I wanted to
> > > simplify things as much as possible.  With gcc it works because gcc
> > > internally doesn't care if an argument or return value is
> really a pointer
> > > or a long (or unsigned long).
> >
> > This *will* change as soon as I get function parameters in registers
> > working - then you have the same situation as with PureC.
>
> Be prepared for a lot of complaints.  There are some hacks floating around
> that depend on the gcc calling conventions, I think the CAB ovl is one of
> them.

1) However will do this change will have to make it optional via a new
switch (methinks),

2) There will always be a way to enforce standard parameter passing -- just
like in PureC which is perfectly capable of developing CAB overlays...