Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:40:32 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: u-igbb@...ey.se Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: variadic args (was: compiling musl on x86_64 linux with pcc) On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:13:16AM +0200, u-igbb@...ey.se wrote: > > Also, in the time you've spent arguing for supporting something that's > > obviously broken (using illegal pointer arithmetic to represent > > variadic args) you could probably have gotten a patch adding > > __builtin_va_* into tcc, using predefined macros with the current bad > > definitions if nothing else. > > Sorry, this is an argument which I can not accept (skipping the technical > statements which I do not agree with but we are not to talk about). > > I am not in a position to fix every compiler I might need, unless I am > forced to. And likewise we're not in a position to support interacting with the compiler-provided stdarg.h from every possible compiler. Note that this is actually complex in practice (there are lots of variants!) while the __builtin_va_* stuff is not complex in practice (tcc is the only example anyone's given where the uniform __builtin_va_* stuff doesn't work). Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.