Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: prototypes required ?
Keywords: printf stdargs prototypes
Message-ID: <27098@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 90 14:55:07 GMT
References: <14164@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2150@lupine.NCD.COM> <27066@mimsy.umd.edu> <2173@lupine.NCD.COM>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 18

In article <2173@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:
>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.

True.  I made the assumption that the system on that machine actually
worked, and guessed (wrongly) that you dropped the `pointer to' somewhere
along the line (easy to do in a Usenet posting where there is no compiler
to catch such errors :-) ).

I still find it hard to believe that someone would not test something
as basic as vprintf (or at least vfprintf---in my implementation, all
the printf routines eventually call vfprintf).  This is sort of like
sending a car to the dealer and forgetting to put in an engine.  Surely
*someone* would notice before selling the thing?
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 405 2750)
Domain:	chris@cs.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris