Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Variable argument lists.
Message-ID: <7970@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 26 May 88 17:26:37 GMT
References: <14139@brl-adm.ARPA> <7864@alice.UUCP> <1740@rpp386.UUCP> <7893@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1068@micomvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 9

In article <1068@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
>Am I totally up the wall, or is this the same person who berated me recently
>for suggesting that "cdecl" in Microsoft C on the PC was A Good Thing
>because amongst other things, it conveniently enabled the saving of an
>instruction per function call?

I don't think you understood the objections to "cdecl", and I do not
wish to reopen that argument.  I merely note that my position on
that does not contradict my desire for maximally fast C function
linkage.