This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: Remove <varargs.h> support, revised

From: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 15 Jul 2002 20:09:52 -0700
Subject: Re: Remove <varargs.h> support, revised
References: <20020715230117.GF10763@codesourcery.com><20020715172005.C5283@redhat.com><20020716005717.GA358@codesourcery.com>

>>>>> "Zack" == Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:

 >> > -#define __va_copy(d,s)	__builtin_va_copy((d),(s))
 >> > +#define __va_copy(d,s)	__builtin_va_copy(d,s)
 >> 
 >> Incorrect removal of argument protection parenthesis.

 > Explain?  Unless I am seriously confused, argument protection
 > parentheses are never necessary when you are simply renaming a
 > function call.

In which case, why don't you do:

#define __va_copy __builtin_va_copy

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Remove <varargs.h> support, revised
  - From: Zack Weinberg

References:
- Remove <varargs.h> support, revised
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: Remove <varargs.h> support, revised
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Remove <varargs.h> support, revised
  - From: Zack Weinberg

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