Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hpda!hpisoa2!hpitg!chronon!eric@chronon
From: eric@chronon
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: varargs
Message-ID: <237@chronon>
Date: Thu, 1-May-86 23:57:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: chronon.237
Posted: Thu May  1 23:57:00 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 13-May-86 01:13:50 EDT
References: <293@usc-obero>
Lines: 17

Sorry, but I left out an important point from my previous posting about
vararg difficulties.

My article should in no way be construed as arguing against allowing
a variable number of arguments being passed to a called function.
Rather, it points out that code that *ASSUMES* that varargs are passed
in memory in ascending addresses *IS A HIGHLY MACHINE-DEPENDENT ASSUMPTION*
and is *NOT PORTABLE CODE*.  Library support to handle variable argument
lists in a standardized way is appropriate (see varargs.h on BSD systems
for something which comes very close).  These library routines are quite
simple on a traditional architecture (which is assumed by too many
existing pieces of code -- printf is too many already!).
-- 
Eric Black   "Garbage In, Gospel Out"
UUCP:        {sun,pyramid,hplabs,amdcad}!chronon!eric
WELL:        eblack
BIX:         eblack