C to Assembly Converter

So there are direct advantages from skipping standard stack frames and use whatever calling convention that fits best for every single function implemented. Not only that - it's quite common to write functions with multiple entry points to make use of common code sequences without the cost of a call/return and without code duplication.

There may be advantages on some processors in using a different calling convention, but on the ARM?

Doing it using the pattern whatever calling convention that fits best for every single function implemented is, quite frankly, courting disaster. The maintenance of such code is awkward at best. I have seen, and had to maintain, large projects of assembler code done in such a manner. Keeping track of register usage in nested function calls was not easy.

it's quite common to write functions with multiple entry points to make use of common code sequences without the cost of a call/return and without code duplication

Common? Really?

By the way - why did you put an emphasis on "you"? There was no "me" used in my previous post.

It was a question to 'you' as in 'dear reader'.

Smart answer!!!

Yea, right. A sheep is so easy to recognise.

So there are direct advantages from skipping standard stack frames and use whatever calling convention that fits best for every single function implemented. Not only that - it's quite common to write functions with multiple entry points to make use of common code sequences without the cost of a call/return and without code duplication.

There may be advantages on some processors in using a different calling convention, but on the ARM?

Doing it using the pattern whatever calling convention that fits best for every single function implemented is, quite frankly, courting disaster. The maintenance of such code is awkward at best. I have seen, and had to maintain, large projects of assembler code done in such a manner. Keeping track of register usage in nested function calls was not easy.

it's quite common to write functions with multiple entry points to make use of common code sequences without the cost of a call/return and without code duplication

Common? Really?

By the way - why did you put an emphasis on "you"? There was no "me" used in my previous post.

It was a question to 'you' as in 'dear reader'.

Smart answer!!!

Yea, right. A sheep is so easy to recognise.

I don't see any significant advantage in maintaining a uniform call convention under these circumstances. It was difficult for you - does it make it unwise?
Ho by the way, there is really no need to demonstrate your potty mouth tendencies when somebody fails to agree with you, yes, S Smyth?

I don't see any significant advantage in maintaining a uniform call convention under these circumstances

You didn't actually read all of what was written, did you.

Why don't you wait for someone else to respond then you can agree with them.

It's obvious you do prefer to debate other people more than you care about considering actual arguments.