[Info-vax] Announcing Ghostscript v9.05 for VMS

[hb]

On 08/08/12 17:54, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> Sure it is. The image headers and the image activator didn't have the
> features that the CRTL folks needed, so the CRTL folks hacked together
> something Really Ugly to get past the immediate requirements.
>
> If the image headers and the activator are not the best spot for this,
> then what's a better fix than an image header extension and the
> associated sys$cli callbacks?
>
> You can't patch a shared CRTL per application, and there's no good way
> to go from the CRTL into the application to rummage around for settings
> there.
There is already decc$main, which is called from the __main wrapper, 
which is generated by the compiler. It's my understanding that decc$main 
(sets - based on logicals - and) evaluates the features. So there is a 
call into the CRTL. Naively as I am I would have thought to pass the 
address of a feature table to decc$main. The table itself can be 
constructed by the compiler or can be part of a to-be-linked-with object 
modul (or modules), similar to the init array of lib$initialize.