From:	<ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200302081135.h18BZDf23590@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	Re: DJGPP headers: C99, free-standing, bugfixes [PATCH]
In-Reply-To:	<E18fM4J-0000kK-00@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> "from Richard Dawe at
	Feb 2, 2003 03:31:59 pm"
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:35:13 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-MailScanner:	Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-Information:	Please contact the ISP for more information
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

According to Richard Dawe:
> * According to the C99 standard, the defines in <stdarg.h> should be
>   available for free-standing implementations. So I moved the #ifdef
>   on __dj_ENFORCE_ANSI_FREESTANDING to after the definitions. I also
>   added two sections for C99 stuff: one for free-standing implementations
>   and for one normal implementations.
> 
>   Was <stdarg.h> supposed to be able for free-standing implementations
>   in C89?

Are you talking about chapter 4 paragraph 6? If so an almost identical
text is present in C89. The difference is that iso646.h, stdbool.h and
stdint.h isn't there.

If not, give more references.


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -