This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: A question about TYPE_ARG_TYPES

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Kazu Hirata <kazu at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 11:54:04 -0400
Subject: Re: A question about TYPE_ARG_TYPES
References: <200607051457.k65EvYx3020685@sparrowhawk.codesourcery.com> <m3k66sys56.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <44ABDFA6.5060909@dberlin.org>

On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:49:58AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I believe it also happens with varargs functions in some cases, if there
> was nothing but a varargs parameter.

I was recently reminded that that's not valid C.  Is there any language
which lets you get away with only unnamed arguments?  If not, I suspect
this is only for old-style definitions.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

References:
- A question about TYPE_ARG_TYPES
  - From: Kazu Hirata
- Re: A question about TYPE_ARG_TYPES
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: A question about TYPE_ARG_TYPES
  - From: Daniel Berlin

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]