1. RE: 2.4 alpha-test release
You are correct... I believe the only problem I have is dealing with
callbacks. However, if I find a problem with something other than
callbacks then I'll let you know. Most likely I'll just wait to alpha
test the new interpreter.
Thanks much,
-- Brian
Robert Craig wrote:
> Brian Broker writes:
> > Will 2.4 have native support for CDecl DLLs?
>
> Yes. I've been working on this lately.
> After much study of assembly code,
> and a lot of testing, I've confirmed that the
> interpreter (built by Watcom),
> and the translator using Watcom,
> can *already* call both stdcall and cdecl dlls.
> Do you have any counter examples?
>
> I've added cdecl support for Borland and Lcc.
> You just have to add a '+' to the function name
> in define_c_func/proc to indicate that it uses
> the cdecl calling convention.
>
> I also plan to allow Euphoria cdecl callback routines.
> Currently, callbacks are stdcall.
>
> By the way, Watcom does not exactly agree with
> the rest of the world as to the cdecl convention,
> but that won't affect us unless your dll is built using Watcom.
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
>
>
2. RE: 2.4 alpha-test release
Robert Craig wrote:
> Brian Broker writes:
> > Will 2.4 have native support for CDecl DLLs?
>
> Yes. I've been working on this lately.
> After much study of assembly code,
> and a lot of testing, I've confirmed that the
> interpreter (built by Watcom),
> and the translator using Watcom,
> can *already* call both stdcall and cdecl dlls.
> Do you have any counter examples?
>
Are you saying translated programs compiled with Watcom can call cdecl
unmodified? If that's what you are saying, then yes, I have
counter-examples...
3. RE: 2.4 alpha-test release
Robert Craig wrote:
> Andy Serpa writes:
> > Are you saying translated programs compiled with Watcom
> > can call cdecl unmodified? If that's what you are saying,
> > then yes, I have counter-examples...
>
> Using exw.exe, or translated code compiled by Watcom,
> you should currently be able to call cdecl routines compiled by
> most C compilers, but (very strangely) *not* those compiled by
> Watcom itself. Watcom's version of cdecl differs
> (in the area of floating-point return values) from most other
> C compilers. There may be other non-standard C compilers
> out there as well.
>
I'm pretty sure I've gotten the same crashes under compiled-by-Watcom as
I did when compiled-by-Borland on at least two libraries. Most did seem
to work with the interpreter, though. (Maybe not all Watcoms are the
same? I am using the Watcom upgrade along with the libs taken from
Hutch's MASM as suggested by Euman a long time ago. Or maybe it is not
just Watcom .dll's it doesn't like.) Give me a day or two and I'll put
some stuff together and send it to you...
