On Thu Jan 24 17:04:00 EST 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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.
i didn't see anything in the definition that would make va_copy wrong given the plan 9 definition of va_list. is there a particular case on plan 9 that would be a problem? > 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. understandable. the whole thing is quite annoying. but plan 9 does have va_start and va_end. wouldn't make sense to have va_copy as well? - erik
