From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] stdarg & va_copy
From: "Russ Cox" <rsc@swtch.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:00:49 -0500
In-Reply-To: <f20f4bfeae36ceb864c82f948e0ba43a@coraid.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20080124220045.07FBD1E8C1C@holo.morphisms.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3765515e-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> is there any reason that /$objtype/include/u.h does not
> define va_copy?  are there objections to this c99 macro?

Yes.  The definition and semantics of va_copy are
sufficiently murky that it seemed best to omit it.

If you are porting code that uses va_copy, you can just
    #define va_copy(x, y) (x) = (y)
in your own compatibility headers.

I'm still annoyed that the C99 committee outlawed taking
the address of a va_list.

Russ