| Re: [AD] proposing a new official .lib name for VC static CRT version |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] proposing a new official .lib name for VC static CRT version
- From: Chris <chris.kcat@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:55:55 -0800
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=AT68nG5JSQCWXumox4LjOxMmxP+GVxLD2NcWv/345OWs+Jl1DdyTTG8NBqp7Lx+WYgsjJPraUS7UnGL1Ueglu1MQq/eDl9cGAGGiNzYqcq8i6mNOdBgAKeVUOZx8Y8BAsq9HqAsNLh02iPNQD79HmT8R84Lf5phJwfiEr+hRtOA=
On Wednesday 11 January 2006 23:30, Peter Wang wrote:
> Not to pull this too far off track but, at least on Unix, the C-only
> builds ought be given different names too.
Is the C-only version incompatible with the asm version? I thought the only
differences was that the functions would use hand-coded assembly or not. I'd
call it a design flaw if the two aren't compatible on the ABI level with the
public API (eg. if there's an exposed asm-only function not in the public API
and that's not referenced directly outside of the library itself, a program
that uses it directly it should expect such consequences). Even if there's
exported asm-only functions, the C-only version could still define those
functions, but make them just do an ASSERT(0) and return.