Re: question on "SavedRegisters::save_registers()"

On 2/28/07, Dave Raymer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm at a loss on the correct port for
> SavedRegisters::save_registers().  The existing Win32 code
> uses the MSC __declspec(naked) compiler directive to avoid the generation of
> prolog and epilog code for the method.  Last time I checked, the standard
> prolog code was "push ebp, mov ebp, esp" (using intel syntax).  The epilog
> code basically just undoes this establishment of the local stack frame.
> Now, the inline assembler in question does not effect ebp or esp.  So, I am
> wondering what the subtle magic is that I am missing ... why was this method
> declared "naked"?
>
> Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
>

I can only guess here, but I think it might be to not generate the
useless prolog/epilog as
removing the Naked declaration (and the "ret" instruction) seems to
work just as well.

-- 
Thiago Silva
Email: [email protected]
Jabber: [email protected]
Blog: http://sourcecraft.info/blog

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Strongtalk-general" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/strongtalk-general?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---