[Zlib-devel] RE : ZLIB_STDCALL or ZLIB_DLL_STDCALL macro

[Gilles Vollant]

I prefer ZLIB_DLL_STDCALL because it is, in my opinion, easyier for my user
replace ZLIB_DLL by ZLIB_DLL_STDCALL


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Cosmin Truta [mailto:cosmin at cs.toronto.edu] 
Envoyé : lundi 28 juillet 2003 21:28
À : Gilles Vollant
Cc : Zlib-devel at zlib.net
Objet : Re: ZLIB_STDCALL or ZLIB_DLL_STDCALL macro


On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Gilles Vollant wrote:

> Do you accept a ZLIB_STDCALL or ZLIB_DLL_STDCALL macro in zconf.h ?

Or even better:

Instead of defining a blank ZLIB_STDCALL, define ZEXPORT to __stdcall.
This already *works* with zlib-1.2.0.f-cos1.

For example, see "contrib/delphi/zlib.mak", where ZEXPORT is defined to
__fastcall.

Instead of overloading the user with additional ZLIB_STDCALL, ZLIB_FASTCALL,
ZLIB_WHATEVER for every fancy convention, it's better to assign the actual
symbols __stdcall, __fastcall, __whatever, or __your_fanciest_convention to
ZEXPORT. And more flexible, too.

Don't you agree?

If you bring counter-arguments, I have no problem adding the ZLIB_STDCALL
and ZLIB_FASTCALL symbols, but the way I see it is that it would be yet
another thing to be learned by the user, and likely to be wrongly understood
and used.
We already have ZEXPORT, why should we add something else?


Cosmin