Re: OpenGl again.
- Posted by Chris Hickman <cdh at MAIL.ALA.NET> Jun 11, 1999
- 385 views
Robert Craig wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean by "call_dll", Sorry, where I said call_dll() I meant call_back(). > however, it's my impression that you will crash if > you declare the wrong number of arguments to a C routine > that you call from Euphoria, but getting the void or non-void > part of its declaration wrong will not matter. > In the worst case you will just get a garbage value returned, > or you will ignore a legitimate value that is returned. Actually I'm not talking about the arguments used in calling a C function, but the return value of the call-back written in Euphoria. The sample C Program mr. Martin was coding by used call-backs with void returns. Because of call_back()'s requirements that the routine_id() pointed to be a function and return a 32-bit value, he had to return an arbitrary value (zero) in his versions of the the call_back functions. If the C function that called the call-back function wasn't expecting a return value, could that be the problem? Am I making more sense now? Thanks, Christopher D. Hickman