Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:25:54 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc: DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Patch: new GCC builtins for stdarg.h/varargs.h
In-Reply-To: <394E3667.6A43D848@softhome.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000619182313.27216d-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> > Just don't do anything about it.  If somebody uses va_copy with GCC 2.95
> > or earlier, they will get an error message, which is appropriate, since
> > this feature is not supported.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand. Following this logic, one may conclude, that
> all the va_list company should not be implemented for GCC 2.95, because
> it did not provide builtins for that. va_copy is defined in C99, not
> as GNU C extension.

va_copy was invented by C99, right?  And GCC didn't support C99 before 
v2.96, right?  So there's nothing wrong if we don't support va_copy with 
versions of GCC before 2.96.

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