From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <52ce4635e6d32cc86bc17f00a1f97890@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:18:32 -0500
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] stdarg & va_copy
In-Reply-To: <4798F692.148257EE@null.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 38a8ffe8-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> erik quanstrom wrote:
> > is there any reason that /$objtype/include/u.h does not
> > define va_copy?  are there objections to this c99 macro?
> 
> Probably it was left out due to not being in the C90 spec.
> There shouldn't be any problem with it, but is it needed?

no.  neither is va_end or the compiler accepting, but ignoring,
the "restrict" qualifier.  but we already do these things.

on the other hand, it does limit needless incompatiblity.

- erik