Mangled function type declarations?

[Marcus Lessard]

Why do header files have declarations for functions in them that look like
this:

unsigned long _RTLENTRY _EXPFUNC _beginthread (void (_USERENTRY
*__start)(void *),unsigned __stksize, void *__arg);

When the implementation files declares them like this:
int thread_id;
thread_id = _beginthread(th read_code,4096, (void *)i);

What is the "_RTLENTRY _EXPFUNC" all about and what should I know about it?
My help files (Borland bcc32 ver 5.5) don't have a lot to say about it.

Thanks In Advance!

[Eric Sosman]

Re: Mangled function type declarations?

Marcus Lessard wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Why do header files have declarations for functions in them that look like
> this:
>
> unsigned long _RTLENTRY _EXPFUNC _beginthread (void (_USERENTRY
> *__start)(void *),unsigned __stksize, void *__arg);
>
> When the implementation files declares them like this:
> int thread_id;
> thread_id = _beginthread(th read_code,4096, (void *)i);
>
> What is the "_RTLENTRY _EXPFUNC" all about and what should I know about it?
> My help files (Borland bcc32 ver 5.5) don't have a lot to say about it.[/color]

These declarations use Implementation Magic: they are
mystical incantations that have meaning (one presumes) to
the compiler that's part of the same package as the headers.
We do not know exactly what they mean; they are "private
communications" to the compiler from the authors of the
header.

"Meddle not in the affairs of wizards, for they are
subtle and quick to anger."

--
Eric.Sosman@sun .com