Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Shankar Unni Subject: Re: Bug: Missing va_end() in cygwin_internal() (OT) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:10:32 -0800 Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <04b601c4eeb3$c2cc6bb0$5308a8c0@robinson.cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-68-122-35-173.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041201 Thunderbird/1.0RC1 Mnenhy/0.7 In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes Dave Korn wrote: > Well, it's only gcc for which we can be absolutely sure it's a no-op. It > might be important to other compilers for all we know. The last architecture I'm aware of where it would make a difference was the old HP-3000 16-bit stack architecture (obsolete since 1986), where the arguments were laid out in the wrong order. (And it's way too old and obsolete to have a gcc port, anyway :-/). Normally, args on such architectures are laid out such that the first argument is at a known (negative) offset from the stack frame base, and the others have increasing (negative) offsets. The HP-3000 was *ss-backwards, in that the first argument had the largest negative offset, with each succeeding argument having a smaller negative offset, so you had to go through incredible calisthenics to support varargs.. Max: keep looking for those nitpicky errors, though - the next one may be significant.. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/