World: r3wp
[Red] Red language group
older newer | first last |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2011 [3414x3] | The current resolver only works for simple cases, basically, only when you're directly passing a function pointer as argument to a function. |
I need to add the unresolved calling convention error routine. | |
When such error will be reported, users would need to provide manually this information, by adding 'cdecl or 'stdcall as attribute. | |
Kaj 19-Sep-2011 [3417] | I don't really see a connection between the function a pointer is passed to and the function that will eventually call it |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2011 [3418] | Well, it depends if the function taking a function pointer is invoking it directly or if it's passing it to another function (local or imported). In the former case, the compiler can set the right cconv itself, in the latter case, it can't and need some help from the user. |
Kaj 19-Sep-2011 [3419] | Yes, so is the current inferer always guessing right? |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2011 [3420x3] | Let me have a look at the specs, I remember there was an edge case documented there... |
No trace of any special cases in the specs anymore. So, the compiler is always guessing right, when it can guess. When it can't, it leaves the cconv in undetermined state (??). | |
The inferer is very simple, it just looks at the cconv of the calling function and propagates it to the callback. If the callback has already a cconv defined, it checks if both cconv matches, and raise an error if it's not the case. | |
Kaj 19-Sep-2011 [3423x2] | Not much to report yet, except this: |
bash-4.0# hello-SQLite-world SQLite version: 3.6.22 SQLite version number: 3006022 SQLite source ID: 2010-01-05 15:30:36 28d0d7710761114a44a1a3a425a6883c661f06e7 | |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2011 [3425x2] | Good start! |
Ok, these are the changes I will make today wrt cconv resolution: - 'cdecl and 'stdcall keywords will be accepted as function attributes. - 'callback attribute remains, it lets the compiler decide on the cconv to apply. If it fails to solve it, an error will be raised and user will have to manually set it instead (replacing 'callback by 'cdecl or 'stdcall). | |
BrianH 19-Sep-2011 [3427] | You can only have one function attribute? |
Pekr 19-Sep-2011 [3428] | then we need typesets and attribute sets :-) |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2011 [3429] | BrianH: no, there are several others that can be mixed together, but only one from [callback stdcall cdecl]. |
BrianH 19-Sep-2011 [3430] | So that means that any function declared as 'cdecl or 'stdcall can now be used as a callback? Or can all functions? |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2011 [3431x2] | Only those having one of those above 3 attributes can be used as "callbacks". |
I think I see your concern. It might be probably less confusing to leave the 'callback keyword mandatory for "callbacks" and accept 'stdcall and 'cdecl as additional attributes, but it is a bit more verbose also. | |
Kaj 19-Sep-2011 [3433] | What's the difference between a cdecl callback and a regular cdecl function? |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2011 [3434] | IIRC, no differences, the callback attribute was just meant to help the compiler figure out that the cconv has to be solved at compile-time. |
Kaj 19-Sep-2011 [3435] | I thought so, so why not drop the callback attribute and let the programmer decide whether it is used as a callback or not? |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2011 [3436x3] | Yes, it would be the logical thing to do. |
But in such case, users woud have to always set the cconv manually and the compiler wouldn't be able to help catch errors. | |
The current 'callback attribute triggers the compiler inferer and cconv errors. | |
Kaj 19-Sep-2011 [3439] | No, I mean your original plan was alright |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2011 [3440] | Well, having just "cdecl" or "stdcall" might not hint enough the reader that the function is used as a callback... |
Kaj 19-Sep-2011 [3441] | But that's the point: it may not be |
BrianH 19-Sep-2011 [3442] | Just wondering: Why do functions need to be marked as being able to be callbacks? Is it to prevent them from being inlined? |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2011 [3443x5] | Answered that a few lines above: "the callback attribute was just meant to help the compiler figure out that the cconv has to be solved at compile-time." |
It is only related to calling convention resolution. | |
If we get rid of 'callback attribute, then only 'cdecl attribute will be required and it will have to be set manually everywhere it is needed. | |
The stdcall wouldn't be required as it is the internal calling convention used by native Red/System functions. | |
In such case, you could use any function as callbacks (as all functions calling convention would be known at compile-time). | |
BrianH 19-Sep-2011 [3448x2] | Ah, cool, I was worried that you were only going to make explicitly marked functions usable as callbacks, rather than all functions. |
You can omit the 'stdcall attribute for stdcall callbacks? | |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2011 [3450x2] | If we drop 'callback attribute, 'stdcall wouldn't be needed, as it is the default convention used by Red/System. |
This might be the best option currently, as it would just require users to change 'callback to 'cdecl in most cases and just drop the 'callback attribute in other cases. | |
BrianH 19-Sep-2011 [3452] | Then we could just specify 'callback if we want the system to guess, 'cdecl if we know it's that, and nothing if stdcall. |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2011 [3453] | No, it can't work that way. If 'callback is used, then we need the error system to catch the unresolved cases, so we need to set initially every callback function calling convention as "unknown" instead of stdcall. For the unresolved cases, the user must be able to set manually the convention, so he needs both 'cdecl and 'stdcall to be accepted. |
BrianH 19-Sep-2011 [3454x2] | I guess I just don't understand well enough what is done to support callbacks. If you specify a 'callback attribute, is there a shim created that marshalls arguments from the callback calling convention (cdecl or stdcall) to the internal calling convention of the function (stdcall or cdecl)? And if you specify 'cdecl or 'stdcall, does that affect the internal calling convention so that no shim is required? |
(Probably should just read the source) | |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2011 [3456x3] | When you use 'callback attribute on a function, the compiler just tries to determine what is the appropriate calling convention to apply internally to the callback function. In order to acheive that, it checks the first caller function that will take the callback as argument and set the callback to the same calling convention. This part is done by the compiler's front-end, which just tries to set the calling convention correctly (just a word! in an internal block!), nothing else. The compiler's back-end just emits the right code for whatever calling convention the function has (cdecl, stdcall, syscall, ...). |
If you were asking if a runtime conversion was done between calling conventions, the answer is no. | |
Kaj: I think after this discussion that dropping the whole callback thing should be the simplest solution. I would only add a 'cdecl attribute for functions that needs to be called from C code. Any function (with or without 'cdecl attribute) could then be used as callback. Would you agree? | |
Kaj 19-Sep-2011 [3459x2] | Agreed |
You may want to add the stdcall attribute already, as well, for when you go to fastcall for native functions | |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2011 [3461] | Right. |
BrianH 19-Sep-2011 [3462] | Sounds good to me too. |
Dockimbel 20-Sep-2011 [3463] | BrianH: I need to correct a bit my answer to your question. Actually, there is a small code emitter dependency on the 'callback attribute. It is used to save special registers (edi, esi, ebx) to conform to IA-32 ABI. It is only needed when providing callbacks that are invoked by the OS or external libraries. I should be able to keep this feature in the new revision while making it transparent to the users. |
older newer | first last |