Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!rfg
From: rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: prototypes required ?
Keywords: printf stdargs prototypes
Message-ID: <2173@lupine.NCD.COM>
Date: 21 Oct 90 18:22:29 GMT
References: <14164@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2150@lupine.NCD.COM> <27066@mimsy.umd.edu>
Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc., Mt. View, CA
Lines: 28

In article <27066@mimsy.umd.edu> chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:
<In article <2150@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:
<>... on a machine for which the va_list type is a structure ... I
<>encountered an odd problem. ...
...
<
<As it happens, `void *' is `good enough' to hold any pointer type.

So what?

<This machine's <stdio.h> contains a questionable, but legal, prototype
<for vfprintf (provided that it *works* of course).  If the compiler
<generates warnings, it can still be considered ANSI conformant...

The <stdio.h> contains what I feel is (or shoud be) an *illegal* prototype
for vprintf().

Note that I said that on this particular machine, va_list is a *struct*
type (*not* a pointer to struct type).  Therefore, declaring the last
parameter for vprintf() as a void* is certainly not going to work right.

I just wanted to clarify that.

-- 

// Ron Guilmette  -  C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.