I saw that h2pas translated:
typedef void(*callback)(int pos, void* userdata);to
callback = procedure (pos:cint; var userdata:pointer);cdecl;shouldn't it be?
callback = procedure (pos:cint; userdata:pointer);cdecl;Paulo Costa
Mailing lists / fpc-pascal / 2011-04
More doubts on C to pascal header translations:
3 messages · 2 people · –
- Paulo Costa 2
- Marco van de Voort 1
Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription
Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.
In our previous episode, Paulo Costa said:
Show quoted text 7 lines
I saw that h2pas translated:
typedef void(*callback)(int pos, void* userdata);
to
callback = procedure (pos:cint; var userdata:pointer);cdecl;
userdata is essentially untyped, so it doesn't matter what it exactly points too.
shouldn't it be? callback = procedure (pos:cint; userdata:pointer);cdecl;
It is a better translation, and also pointer style support NIL. Do you use -v or not?
Marco van de Voort wrote 11 lines
In our previous episode, Paulo Costa said:
> I saw that h2pas translated:
>
> typedef void(*callback)(int pos, void* userdata);
>
> to
>
> callback = procedure (pos:cint; var userdata:pointer);cdecl;
userdata is essentially untyped, so it doesn't matter what it exactly points
too.
Right. The trouble here was that I see var foo as a reference to foo, which means an implicit pointer. So var userdata:pointer is like a pointer to pointer and that doesn't look like the original C code...
Show quoted text 7 lines
> shouldn't it be?
>
> callback = procedure (pos:cint; userdata:pointer);cdecl;
It is a better translation, and also pointer style support NIL. Do you use
-v or not?
OK. I did not use the -v option so I was wondering why it was selecting the first option.
Paulo Costa