Re: OpenGl again.
- Posted by Pete Eberlein <xseal at HARBORSIDE.COM> Jun 11, 1999
- 387 views
Christopher Hickman writes: > 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? C calling conventions state that a 32-bit return value should be passed back via a register. If the caller is not expecting a return value, it will simply ignore the value of the register. There is no danger of corrupting the stack. Later, _______ ______ _______ ______ [ _ \[ _ ][ _ _ ][ _ ] [/| [_] |[/| [_\][/ | | \][/| [_\] | ___/ | _] | | | _] [\| [/] [\| [_/] [\| |/] [\| [_/] [_____] [______] [_____] [______] xseal at harborside.com ICQ:13466657 http://www.harborside.com/home/x/xseal/euphoria/