Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!texbell!sugar!ficc!uunet!auspex!guy
From: guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Addresses of parameters (was Re: Portability of passing/operating ...)
Message-ID: <321@auspex.UUCP>
Date: 27 Oct 88 19:51:48 GMT
References: <8810111934.AA21941@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU> <8308@alice.UUCP> <23933@wlbr.EATON.COM> <1988Oct19.192548.28438@ateng.ateng.com> <35 <35569@XAIT.Xerox.COM> <41337@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <35620@XAIT.Xerox.COM> <23385@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Reply-To: guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Lines: 9

>How do you suppose varargs functions are implemented?  They must take
>the address of the first parameter to "step through" the parameter list.

Umm, how "varargs" functions are implemented is a function of how
they're implemented; they are *generally* implemented in the fashion you
describe, but there is no *requirement* that they be so implemented. 
<varargs.h> (or <stdarg.h> as in the draft ANSI C standard) can be
implemented however the vendor chooses, as long as they Do The Right
Thing.