Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!dgcad!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: prototypes, NULL, and magic
Summary: still wondering...
Message-ID: <1561@sheol.UUCP>
Date: 2 Apr 91 00:31:05 GMT
References: <1991Mar20.174710.4405@zoo.toronto.edu> <11202@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1490@sheol.UUCP> <15588@smoke.brl.mil>
Lines: 26

- gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
-- throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
-- ... I am moved to ask: what about the execl(2) family of functions, ...
- These are specified in IEEE Std 1003.1.  Yes, in general they might not
- work right if invoked without a prototype in scope.

While this is perfectly good information, it doesn't adequately address
the question I originally asked, for three reasons:

  - I was asking about the situation WITH a prototype in scope
  - I was asking about a specific environment, as well as in in general
    (perhaps this means I should have asked elsewhere, but my question
     was relevant to a general discussion that occured on comp.lang.c)
  - I was asking about the BSD 4.mumble implementation Chris Torek
    referenced, not about any relevant standards.

So, specifically: under the upcoming BSD release, with prototypes in
scope, is it really safe to use unadorned NULL to terminate a
variable argument list a-la execl(2) family as Chris seemed to
imply (but did not explicitly state)?  Or did I misunderstand?

More generally, with prototypes in scope, are there any but the default
promotions which occur for arguments referenced by the "..." argument
specifier?
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw