[gmpi] Re: Topic 3: Cross platform
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:00:00 -0800 (PST)
> I agree. I was thinking we could even define the whatever calling
> convention we use (say, cdecl) at the machine level, ie, caller pushes each
> argument widened to 64 bits, and caller is responsible for fixing up the
> stack upon return. That way other languages could be supported by an
> assembly language thunking layer.
ick - isn't it safe for us just to define the bit-width of EVERYTHING, and
leave the ABI to the platform?
We're not trying to make cross-platform binaries. A binary is only good on
it's own platform, so just stick with what the platform provides (the C
implementation, that is). For platofrms with alternate ABIs, let's pick
one, standardize on it, and leave it alone.
The impending appearance of 64 bit OSes on desktops makes things fun. We
can either define every bit-width, or we can define none. Are Windows
32-bit plugins supposed to run on Windows 64-bit hosts? Or are 32 and 64
bits different platforms, across which binaries are not compatible?
Tim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
