Re: [9fans] stdarg & va_copy

["Russ Cox" <rsc@swtch.com>]

> i didn't see anything in the definition that would make va_copy
> wrong given the plan 9 definition of va_list.  is there a particular
> case on plan 9 that would be a problem?

it might make sense to *have* va_copy, but since plan 9
programs don't use va_copy, there's no need to provide
an implementation.  and honestly, the fewer people who
use va_copy, the better.

> but plan 9 does have va_start and va_end.  wouldn't make sense
> to have va_copy as well?

plan 9 makes no claims of being C99 compliant,
although it happens to have a few of the same extensions.
va_start, va_end, and va_arg are from an earlier standard.
those (in particular va_arg) provide useful functionality.
va_copy does not.

like i said, if you need it, it's easy to put a #define
in your own compatibility headers.  if you don't
need it, don't worry about it.

russ