Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!psuvax1!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: vs. function prototypes Message-ID: <16405@smoke.brl.mil> Date: 13 Jun 91 16:56:49 GMT References: <25353@oolong.la.locus.com> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 21 In article <25353@oolong.la.locus.com> scotte@locus.com (Scott D. Eberline) writes: >I'm a bit resigned to having missing prototype warnings for the module >that contains the function definitions. As you have discovered, there is no correct way to use prototypes for -style variadic functions (when they are supported at all). You ought to simply use the empty-parenthesis (old style) form of declaration for such functions. By the way, I take exception to the implementation warning you that no prototypes exists, unles you have specifically asked for that check. The C standard does not require that prototypes be used. >How dangerous is it to call functions declared externally using the >ellipsis notation, but defined using va_dcl? May a conforming implement- >ation assume that functions with ellipsis prototypes use -style >arguments and not -style? The answer to the second question is "Certainly, and indeed it is likely." Therefore the answer to the first question is that it is not a good idea.