Re: va_list: headers

[Zack Weinberg <zack@bitmover.com>]

Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 11:15:42PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > * Can we have something along the lines of
> > 
> > #if defined __STDC_VERSION__ && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199909L
> > #define va_copy(dest, src) __va_copy(dest, src)
> > #endif
> > 
> > please?  That'll eliminate a deviation from C9x.
> 
> va_copy is defined unconditionally in <stdarg.h>; c9x
> really defines va_copy at all for <varargs.h>?

C9x says nothing about <varargs.h>.  I should have been clearer:  I'd
like the above in <stdarg.h> only.

I think we should still have the ability to compile code in strict C89
mode, so we shouldn't unconditionally define the no-underscores
version.

[...]
 > * Does any port use the second argument to stdarg.h va_start?  If not,
> > why don't we use the same builtin for both versions of va_start, and
> > ignore the second argument to the stdarg.h version?
> 
> The final arg isn't _used_, as such, but we do verify and warn
> when the argument is not the last named argument.

I realized we did that five minutes after sending the message.   Never
mind.

zw