Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: variable number of arguments
Message-ID: <7361@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 28 Feb 88 00:45:10 GMT
References: <1608@byzantium.UUCP> <1632@mhres.mh.nl> <51@vsi.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 11
Keywords: arguments, varargs

In article <51@vsi.UUCP> friedl@vsi.UUCP (Stephen J. Friedl) writes:
>     I have no specific reason to doubt the portability, but it
>strikes me that since args are so crazy on various machines (stack
>grows up, stack grows down, params passed in registers, etc.)
>that letting varargs handle *all* the details would not be a bad
>idea.

In fact that's the right way to use varargs.  Declaring part of
the argument list is the wrong way.  (This is the opposite of
ANSI C <stdarg.h> macros, where there MUST be at least one
"anchor" argument declared right before the variadic part.)