From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/5960 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: variadic args (was: [musl] compiling musl on x86_64 linux with pcc) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:40:32 -0400 Message-ID: <20140828144032.GX12888@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20140825082807.GB12376@example.net> <20140825083457.GC12376@example.net> <20140825154617.GV12888@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20140826193439.GH12376@example.net> <20140826195407.GG12888@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20140827074036.GI12376@example.net> <20140827075407.GL12888@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20140827085254.GJ12376@example.net> <20140827163413.GM12888@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20140828081316.GN12376@example.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1409236856 21925 80.91.229.3 (28 Aug 2014 14:40:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:40:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com To: u-igbb@aetey.se Original-X-From: musl-return-5967-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Aug 28 16:40:49 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XN0sa-00027z-1t for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:40:48 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 18000 invoked by uid 550); 28 Aug 2014 14:40:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 17992 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2014 14:40:47 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140828081316.GN12376@example.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:5960 Archived-At: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:13:16AM +0200, u-igbb@aetey.se wrote: > > 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. And likewise we're not in a position to support interacting with the compiler-provided stdarg.h from every possible compiler. Note that this is actually complex in practice (there are lots of variants!) while the __builtin_va_* stuff is not complex in practice (tcc is the only example anyone's given where the uniform __builtin_va_* stuff doesn't work). Rich