Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!enea!kth!sics!uplog!thomas
From: thomas@uplog.se (Thomas Hameenaho)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Can ANYONE tell me why this code snippet doesn't work??
Keywords: varargs
Message-ID: <316@uplog.se>
Date: 18 Oct 88 21:02:59 GMT
References: <7778@gryphon.CTS.COM> <315@uplog.se> <982@mina.liu.se>
Reply-To: thomas@uplog.UUCP (Thomas Hameenaho)
Organization: TeleLOGIC Uppsala AB
Lines: 17

In article <982@mina.liu.se> mikpe@mina.liu.se (Mikael Pettersson) writes:
>Noooo!
>The great advantage in using varargs(3) is PORTABILITY. It's guaranteed
>to work in any conforming ANSI C implementation (where it's called <stdarg.h>)
>and it will work in virtually all existing UNIX C compilers as well.
>Assumptions about stack layout, parameter passing and order of evaluation
>will only lead to bugprone and non-portable code.

I agree fully with you. However not THAT many systems have v{sf}printf()
(BSD systems doesn't, at least not 4.3) and my response was an attempt 
to explain what was wrong with the code.
I would definately NOT try to manipulate the sp.
-- 
Real life:	Thomas Hameenaho		Email:	thomas@uplog.{se,uucp}
Snail mail:	TeleLOGIC Uppsala AB		Phone:	+46 18 189406
		Box 1218			Fax:	+46 18 132039
		S - 751 42 Uppsala, Sweden