Re: variadic args (was: [musl] compiling musl on x86_64 linux with pcc)

[u-igbb@aetey.se]

> I really don't want to argue about this anymore.

I respect this and will not bother you and the list on this topic.

Thanks for going out of your way to explain your reasons for the choices.

Unfortunately in some cases I have to work around the choices, for reasons
legitimate in my eyes. This does not imply that you (or me) are wrong,
but merely confirms that no approach is good for every situation.

> Also, in the time you've spent arguing for supporting something that's
> obviously broken (using illegal pointer arithmetic to represent
> variadic args) you could probably have gotten a patch adding
> __builtin_va_* into tcc, using predefined macros with the current bad
> definitions if nothing else.

Sorry, this is an argument which I can not accept (skipping the technical
statements which I do not agree with but we are not to talk about).

I am not in a position to fix every compiler I might need, unless I am
forced to.

I try otherwise to fix what I work with and what I possibly know better
than other parties, namely how to make the pieces (compilers, libraries
and applications) work _together_ in a most general fashion.

Musl happens to be an elegantly designed and efficiently usable libc,
very useful in such a context. That's why I care about it.
Thanks Rich!

Rune