According to Jan-Jaap van der Heijden:

Borland does it like this:

---

unit Foo;

interface

function Bar(var i: integer): integer;

implementation

function Bar; external;

end.

GPC allows this:

Unit Foo;

Interface

Function Bar ( Var i: Integer ): Integer; external;

Implementation

end.

(Or `attribute', or `asmname' in the Interface part.)

However, Borland-comptaible syntax should be supported, too.

Although it accepts the input, GPC doesn't do anything with the directives. (function attributes not surviving the GPI mechanism is a long-standing bug, but the "asmname" is silently ignored).

It's fixed now. :-)

[...] GPC has no equivalent for the "DLLfile". But, if implemented, the automake mechanism could add an option "-lDLLfile" to the linker command line, something you have to do manually now. This is useful for all platforms, not just windows DLL's BTW.

I agree.

1. Are there any reasons not to change the "external" declaration, at least for "borland" mode?

This should be done. With what priority?

2. Any objections against allowing (working, that is) function attributes in the implementation part?

When we want them in the GPI file, they *must* be present already in the Interface part.

Greetings,

Peter

Dipl.-Phys. Peter Gerwinski, Essen, Germany, free physicist and programmer peter.gerwinski@uni-essen.de - http://home.pages.de/~peter.gerwinski/ [970201] maintainer GNU Pascal [970624] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [970125]