On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Jonas Maebe <jonas.ma...@elis.ugent.be> wrote: > I was merely answering your question why we do it differently than Delphi, > even though Delphi is generally the de facto standard. I was trying to > explain that we did not do it differently simply because our way was the > right one and Delphi's way the wrong one, or out of spite or so. But it > appears that you interpreted my answer in exactly the opposite sense (that > we won't change it out of spite).
Yup. Got that. It's just that I've heard it a few times before and was a bit confounded by the rational. No > The main problem with changing it now would obviously be that it would break > backwards compatibility with existing code. It could still be done in Delphi > mode onlu, of course, but changing the behaviour of a calling convention > (which is normally an ABI issue) based on a language syntax mode feels... > not right. I don't believe this fix would cause any problems with existing code. The fix has been when using cdecl to declare const structures as pointers to structures. That is to say: function nanosleep(RequestedTime: PTimeSpec; Remaining: PTimeSpec): Integer; cdecl; Which would operate just the same. Thank you all for your courtesy. I understand the issue better now. I'll look into how to help out with the compiler development soon and hopefully help improve FPC. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
