Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!blars!blarson
From: blarson@blars
Newsgroups: comp.os.os9
Subject: Re: OSK C Compiler problem with No. of Args
Keywords: OSK, C
Message-ID: <195@blars>
Date: 26 Apr 91 08:21:21 GMT
References: <1991Apr25.174038.7834@cbnewsd.att.com>
Sender: news@usc
Reply-To: blarson@usc.edu
Lines: 40
Nntp-Posting-Host: dianne.usc.edu
Originator: blarson@dianne.usc.edu

In article <1991Apr25.174038.7834@cbnewsd.att.com> knudsen@cbnewsd.att.com (michael.j.knudsen) writes:
>This isn't a bug (maybe)

Definatly not a bug.

>If one of your functions is defined as taking N arguments,
>then your calls to that function had better have exactly N arguments,
>no less!  (Maybe more is OK; not tried).

More is definatly OK, and if you want to do a variable number I
strongly recomend my varargs.h.  (Smilodon.cs.wisc.edu has at least
two copies: mg and blarslib both contain it.  Let me know if it should
be uploaded separatly.)

>But OSK C does strange things sometimes if not all args are present.
>I know it puts the first two args in regs d0 and d1, then pushes
>the rest on stack, in [I hope] reverse order.

The register use gets more complicated if you ever use floating point.
You realy shouldn't care what order things are pushed in unless you
are writing a varargs.h or stdarg.h package, which should be included
with the C compiler so only the compiler author needs to worry about
it.  (Stdarg.h can't be done without compiler support on OSK.)

>Anyway, just another sloppy programming practice that you can't get
>away with any more.

Any more???  Useing this sloppy programming practice was taking
advantage of a compier bug, (that it didn't diagnose the condition) and
never should have been counted on.



-- 
blarson@usc.edu
		C news and rn for os9/68k!
-- 
Bob Larson (blars)	blarson@usc.edu			usc!blarson
	Hiding differences does not make them go away.
	Accepting differences makes them unimportant.