Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2000/06/19/14:27:03
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> It is true that va_copy is supported by GCC builtins in
> 2.96 only, is it?
Yes.
> > Currently there's nothing wrong. But when we start adding C99
> > features, it will become wrong.
>
> What will become wrong?
It will be a missing C99 feature.
> We don't intend to support C99 features that require compiler support,
> unless the version of the compiler in use actually does provide that
> support, do we?
But compiler support here is optional, like with va_arg etc.
> Since va_copy requires a special feature of the compiler, we can require
> that the compiler be new enough, for va_copy to be supported. People who
> use older compilers won't have va_copy, just like they don't today.
That's true if builtins are the only way to implement va_copy. But
DJGPP with va_arg etc. already has proved that other implementations
are possible.
> The point is that introducing a new feature without compiler support is
> different from continued support for an old feature that is proven to
> work with old compilers.
And what about introducing a new feature which works with both old and
new compiler? Just like we have two cases for va_list now, with and
without builtins?
Laurynas
- Raw text -