bugs, incompatibity, function attributes_(re)

Wed, 2 Jul 1997 00:56:42 +0200 (MET DST)

According to The African Chief:
> 
> 1. specifying DLL names;
> With Borland, you need to specify the name of the DLL from which
> you are importing a function. You need to do this with *every*
> function. This is extremely tedious. Try doing that with the whole
> Win32 API for example. Also, you would need to find some documentation
> on which DLL holds which function. That is even more tedious. Thus, if we 
> are going to support the Borland syntax, then using it should be optional. 
> With GPC, you don't need to specify the DLL name - that is, I think, a 
> *great* advantage over Borland.

Or you can specify the DLL name *once* with (*$L foo.a *) or something
similar to be implemented.  Yes - a great advantage!

> 2. not having to redeclare the entire function in the implementation section;
> I think it is good to support this. With Borland, you can redeclare the whole
> function, or you can just specify it's name. You are not forced to do it in
> any particular way, and you can mix and match. It would be nice if GPC
> supported this.

GPC *does* support this.

> 3. Delphi's "name" directive;
> This is exactly the same as GPC's "asmname" directive. We can 
> implement this simply by also allowing just the use of "name" in any place
> where "asmname" would be allowed (i.e., we can dispense with the "asm"
> part of the "asmname" directive). That way, we get the best of both worlds!

Sounds reasonable.  So should we just change "asmname" to "name"?
Or keep both?

    Peter

 Dipl.-Phys. Peter Gerwinski, Essen, Germany, free physicist and programmer
peter.gerwinski@uni-essen.de - http://home.pages.de/~peter.gerwinski/ [970201]
 maintainer GNU Pascal [970624] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [970125]

Peter Gerwinski (peter@agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de)