[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140828144032.GX12888@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
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.
