Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:9207 comp.sys.ibm.pc:14357
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: cdecl keyword
Message-ID: <7667@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 12 Apr 88 13:37:54 GMT
References: <1238@wjvax.UUCP> <297@ho7cad.ATT.COM> <1242@wjvax.UUCP> <185@premise.ZONE1.COM> <7046@ki4pv.uucp> <5980@utcsri.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 11

In article <5980@utcsri.UUCP> flaps@utcsri.UUCP (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>In C it is permissible to call any function (including
>user-defined ones) with the wrong number of arguments, so long as any
>arguments not actually passed are not accessed by the function being
>called.

Not true in general.  If you read Dennis's anti-noalias diatribe,
near the end you may recall that he identified two botches in original
C, one of which was that printf()-like functions existed without
adequate language support.  The reason for the ,... approach of ANSI
C is to provide adequate language support for variadic arguments.