Lists

Open Menu Close Menu

Terms and Conditions
Lists hosted on this site
Email the Postmaster
Tips for posting to public mailing lists

Re: Structs pushed on stack backwards?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Structs pushed on stack backwards?

Subject: Re: Structs pushed on stack backwards?
From: Uli Kusterer <email@hidden>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:47:48 +0200

Am 29.04.2007 um 21:15 schrieb Eric Albert:

Actually, it's easier to have it pushed this way. Here's one reason: x is at offset 0 in the struct and y is at offset 4. When code references this struct, it'll reference it from the base address. If that's, say, �x, x ends up as 0(�x) and y is 4(�x).

Right! Sorry for that stupid question. That, of course, makes perfect sense. That way you can use the same offset tables for everything and save yourself a little maths.

Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
http://www.zathras.de

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden



References:  
  >Structs pushed on stack backwards? (From: Uli Kusterer <email@hidden>)
  >Re: Structs pushed on stack backwards? (From: Eric Albert <email@hidden>)




Prev by Date:
Re: Structs pushed on stack backwards?

Next by Date:
RE: Structs pushed on stack backwards?

Previous by thread:
Re: Structs pushed on stack backwards?

Next by thread:
RE: Structs pushed on stack backwards?

Index(es):

Date
Thread