> is there any reason that /$objtype/include/u.h does not > define va_copy? are there objections to this c99 macro?
Yes. The definition and semantics of va_copy are
sufficiently murky that it seemed best to omit it.
If you are porting code that uses va_copy, you can just
#define va_copy(x, y) (x) = (y)
in your own compatibility headers.
I'm still annoyed that the C99 committee outlawed taking
the address of a va_list.
Russ
