Message-ID:	<394E3ECE.8D7A4DD7@softhome.net>
Date:	Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:39:58 +0200
From:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	lt,en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC:	DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Patch: new GCC builtins for stdarg.h/varargs.h
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000619182313 DOT 27216d-100000 AT is>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> va_copy was invented by C99, right?  And GCC didn't support C99 before
> v2.96, right?  

Not exactly. GCC 2.96 isn't the key version when talking about C99. 
Some of standard features were supported for a long time (such 
as 'long long') and some are still not implemented or broken 
(complex types, AFAIK).

> So there's nothing wrong if we don't support va_copy with
> versions of GCC before 2.96.

Currently there's nothing wrong. But when we start adding C99
features, it will become wrong. I still do not understand,
why va_copy is binded with GCC 2.96. I think I'll just test
trivial non-builtin va_copy implementation, if it works - 
it would be the best way to end discussion ;)

> va_list and va_arg are different: they are in C90, and DJGPP supported
> them from day one.

The only difference I see is standard version. I should be missing
something here.

Laurynas

- Raw text -