RE: Extension to the FFI to allow macro expansions to be avoided

On 16 April 2004 11:33, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:

> Perhaps we should differentiate by a calling convention between
> linking to a function directly and generating a source-level C call?
> 
> The calling conventions we know would correspond to linking to them
> directly. They would perform the necessary magic to turn off macros
> when compiling via C, and they would not need a C compiler when
> compiling via assembler. There is no need for specifying a C header
> in this case. 
> 
> Another calling convention would generate a function wrapper with
> proper argument types. It would need "foreign type" declarations and
> included headers. The wrapped calling convention in this case is of
> course irrelevant, so it's a calling convention rather than a
> separate flag. 

I wondered about that (while writing my last post) but it still seems
like a hefty price to pay for the small number of problematic cases we
have, and given that you can already write the C stubs by hand to get
the desired effect.  Hmm, perhaps this falls in to the category of
something we expect an external tool to do?

Cheers,
	Simon