> erik quanstrom wrote: > > is there any reason that /$objtype/include/u.h does not > > define va_copy? are there objections to this c99 macro? > > Probably it was left out due to not being in the C90 spec. > There shouldn't be any problem with it, but is it needed?
no. neither is va_end or the compiler accepting, but ignoring, the "restrict" qualifier. but we already do these things. on the other hand, it does limit needless incompatiblity. - erik
