Making C better (by borrowing from C++)

[masood.iqbal]

I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am talking
about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more elegantly in
C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete, references, consts,
declaring variables just before use etc.

I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really like
to use these features in my C programs.

Masood

[CBFalconer]

Chris Croughton wrote:

<cb********@yah oo.com> wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

All API functions under win32 use the _stdcall calling
convention. This means that the called function cleans up the
stack, i.e. adds to the stack before returning the space allocate
to make the argument frame. This means that all code for stack
adjustment is moved fom all call sites to the single instruction
in the called function.

This can't be done with functions that receive an unknown number
of arguments like printf, for instance.

In C you prototype those functions as
int myfn(char *,...);

It would be impossible for such functions to clean up the stack
since they can't know how much was pushed, they discover it at
run time, and it could be perfectly legal to pass more arguments
than needed.

It is needed then to have two disctinct calling conventions,
(there are more like fastcall where the arguments are passed in
registers but let's leave it at that).

Things like printf, and variadic functions in general, are NOT OS
calls (although they are a source of bugs). They are the creation
of the C library alone. If the C compiler has a different calling
protocol than the OS, then you simply need a collection of
interface functions to do the conversion. Those go in the library.

Thinking about it, it's quite possible for a compiler to use two
different calling conventions automatically. If it's a variadic
function, or (in C90) has a null prototype (), the calling code
pops the parameters, otherwise the called function pops them. If
a function has a fixed number of parameters (as anything using
_stdcall must do) this this is not a problem.

If there isn't a prototype in scope at the time of the function call,
assume whichever you like and issue a warning, it's te programmer's
problem...

As another ferexample, you can have a macro in stdio.h that reads:

#define printf _funnycall _xprintf

with whatever implementations specific action you wish from
_funnycall. _xprintf will be written to do the actual work. With
C99 variadic macros you can carry this further by including the
parameters to printf in xprintf.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.c om, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

[Richard Bos]

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> wrote:

All API functions under win32 use the _stdcall calling convention.

They'd better not. I'm allowed to do this:

int func(void)
{
int _stdcall=4;
return _stdcall;
}

Oh, perhaps you meant to say that those functions _aren't ISO C_? Gosh,
what a surprise.

[ Snip rest of off-topic nonsense. ]

Richard

[jacob navia]

Richard Bos wrote:

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> wrote:

All API functions under win32 use the _stdcall calling convention.

They'd better not. I'm allowed to do this:

int func(void)
{
int _stdcall=4;
return _stdcall;
}

Oh, perhaps you meant to say that those functions _aren't ISO C_? Gosh,
what a surprise.

[ Snip rest of off-topic nonsense. ]

Richard

Go tell that to Bill Gates Mr Boss.

[ Snip rest of off-topic nonsense. ]

You aren't able to argument anything anyway.
That would suppose making an intellectual effort and
try to explain your views.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:24:03 +0100, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> wrote:

Richard Bos wrote:

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> wrote:

All API functions under win32 use the _stdcall calling convention.

Oh, perhaps you meant to say that those functions _aren't ISO C_? Gosh,
what a surprise.

[ Snip rest of off-topic nonsense. ]

Go tell that to Bill Gates Mr Boss.

I'm trying to work out if you're being deliberately stupid, or merely
accidentally so. Are you trying to claim that Windows API calls are
standard C, or that somehow invoking Bill Gates' name will make them so, or
what?

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt >

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Richard Bos]

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> wrote:

Richard Bos wrote:

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> wrote:

All API functions under win32 use the _stdcall calling convention.

They'd better not. I'm allowed to do this:

int func(void)
{
int _stdcall=4;
return _stdcall;
}

Oh, perhaps you meant to say that those functions _aren't ISO C_? Gosh,
what a surprise.

[ Snip rest of off-topic nonsense. ]

Richard

Go tell that to Bill Gates

Bill Gates doesn't post his non-conforming code to c.l.c.
Mr Boss.
Grow up...
[ Snip rest of off-topic nonsense. ]
....and get a brain. You didn't snip a single byte of my post.
You aren't able to argument anything anyway.
That would suppose making an intellectual effort and
try to explain your views.

I've done that in the past. And again, and again, and again. If you want
to review all my arguments for why "your" compiler is off-topic here, go
to DejaGoogle; I'm not going to rehash them yet another time. Every now
and then it still is a good idea to point out that your extensions are
off-topic in this newsgroup (and that you have a whole shining,
sparkling newsgroup for lcc to play around in), both for your own
edification and that of any lurkers; but if you haven't understood _why_
by now, you probably never will.

Richard

[Chris Hills]

In article <42************ *********@news. wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> writes

Richard Bos wrote:

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> wrote:

All API functions under win32 use the _stdcall calling convention.

They'd better not. I'm allowed to do this:

int func(void)
{
int _stdcall=4;
return _stdcall;
}

Oh, perhaps you meant to say that those functions _aren't ISO C_? Gosh,
what a surprise.

[ Snip rest of off-topic nonsense. ]

Richard

Go tell that to Bill Gates Mr Boss.

Who cares what MS does? the majority of C programming is not for a
Windows target anyway.

Are you saying the MS does NOT produce a C compiler but something of
their own that does not conform to international standards?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/