This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Ada in gcc-3.4.3 on x86_64
- From: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at redhat dot com>
- To: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Dean Kolosiek <kolosiekweb04 at qwest dot net>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Gary Dismukes <dismukes at adacore dot com>, Ed Schonberg <schonberg at adacore dot com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:36:15 +0000
- Subject: Re: Ada in gcc-3.4.3 on x86_64
- References: <6.1.2.0.0.20050105011154.03606230@pop.phnx.qwest.net><41DBF735.30204@adacore.com>
Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> writes:
> Not at all. There are architectures on which the calling sequence for
> an n-adic function, and a variadic function with n arguments are
> radically different. So if you interpret the note to mean that you
> always expect one syntactic form to cover both cases, that's simply
> plain impossible on some architectures, e.g. MIPS/Irix if I remember
> correctly.
You do ;) But just in case there's any confusion, the distinction is
between named and unnamed (variadic) arguments, not between variadic
and non-variadic _functions_. So...
Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> writes:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> No, There are two possible variadic declarations for printf in this
>> case:
>> void printf (char *, ...);
>> and void printf (char *, int, ...);
>
> Is this really a problem in practice.
...it certainly will be on MIPS. The number of named arguments before
the "..." does matter.
Richard