According to the PDD03 I have here: Calling conventions: I0 Prototyped call? I1 Number of overflow params I2 Number of params in PMC registers P3 Overflow params
Return conventions: I0 Prototyped return? I1 Number of return values in integer registers I2 Number of return values in string registers I3 Number of return values in PMC registers I4 Number of return values in numeric registers P3 Overflow return values in an array PMC I'm wondering why the conventions for calling and returning aren't more symmetrical... Why doesn't a return use I1 and I2 the same as a call does? Especially with CPS, where calls and returns seem almost interchangable (you could do tricks involving passing subroutines in P1 and pretending they were return continuations), I think it would be better if calls and returns used the same conventions. The existing (assuming the return conventions in the PDD are up to date) return conventions don't really make much sense, anyway; if a return is non-prototyped, you'll have to stick all the return values in P registers, and won't use the others. So why use I1,2,and 4 like that? I would prefer to see this: I0 Prototyped return? I1 Number of overflow return values I2 Number of return values in PMC registers P3 Overflow return values in an array PMC so as to make call/return symmetrical (this would also allow me to use the same Params class in my compiler for both calls and returns ;-) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
