[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Date Index Thread Index Search archive:
Date:Mon Nov 10 22:03:09 2003 
Subject:Re: Using 'varargs' vs 'stdargs' 
From:Andreas Eder 
Volume-ID:1031110.06 

Roger.Evans@itri.brighton.ac.uk writes:

> I don't know anything about 'stdargs' either, but a key quesiton is 
> whether it is just a change to the syntax of  varargs handling or the 
> way it is actually achieved (which I think for varargs was by passing a 
> count of the number of args followed by the args themselves on the 
> callstack, but I may be wrong - anyway it doesn't really matter, what 
> matters is, has it changed?). This is important because some native pop 
> code in the Xt interface invokes external C procedures using the varargs 
> protocol, but possibly not via an actual C wrapper, so it wouldn't have 
> been caught by a global change to C files. If anyone thinks there's an 
> issue here, I could try and rediscover whether/where it happens in more 
> detail.

Well, I don't know how 'stdarg' or 'varargs' is implemented in gcc -
but I do know that using 'stdarg' is the ANSI C way of handling
variable arguments (and varargs was a pre-ansi unix way of doing it).
I guess that the implementation is still done much the same way tough,
but it enables slightly better error checking by the compiler.

'Andreas
-- 
Wherever I lay my .emacs, there´s my $HOME.