Re: representing functions with arguments in an abstract syntax tree

"Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk>
2 Jan 2004 03:40:13 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
representing functions with arguments in an abstract syntax tree melkorainur@yahoo.com (2003-12-27)
Re: representing functions with arguments in an abstract syntax tree torek@torek.net (Chris Torek) (2004-01-02)
Re: representing functions with arguments in an abstract syntax tree malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk (Malcolm) (2004-01-02)
Re: representing functions with arguments in an abstract syntax tree cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-01-02)
Re: representing functions with arguments in an abstract syntax tree jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr (jacob navia) (2004-01-02)
Re: representing functions with arguments in an abstract syntax tree witness@t-online.de (Uli Kusterer) (2004-01-02)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.lang.c
Date: 2 Jan 2004 03:40:13 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 03-12-142
Keywords: code
Posted-Date: 02 Jan 2004 03:40:13 EST

"Melkor Ainur" <melkorainur@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> I write a generic function pointer that can
> represent all my different functions. some that have multiple
> promotable-arguments (chars, ints) and pointers. and then, how do I
> Pass these functions their arguments? I currently suspect I can't do
> that within C and that I might need to generate architecture specific
> assembly to store the arguments on the stack and then call the builtin
> function.


Your suspicion is right. You want to write a C function like this


void call_function(char *argtypes, void (*fptr)(), ...)
{
    /* use information in argtypes to call fptr with arguments */
}


Unfortunately it can't be done in ANSI C. It's not too difficult to do
in assembly language however, as long as you know the calling
convention.



Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.