Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!paulc
From: paulc@microsoft.UUCP (Paul Canniff 2/1011)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: printf() problem
Keywords: C printf varargs
Message-ID: <5645@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 3 May 89 19:19:08 GMT
References: <11657@hodge.UUCP> <89Apr26.092233edt.18850@me.utoronto.ca> <6006@sunray.UUCP>
Reply-To: paulc@microsoft.UUCP (Paul Canniff 2/1011)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 17

In article <6006@sunray.UUCP> jimp@cognos.UUCP (Jim Patterson) writes:
>In article <89Apr26.092233edt.18850@me.utoronto.ca> zougas@hammer.me.UUCP (Athanasios(Tom) Zougas) writes:
>>C puts its function parameters on the stack in "reverse" order, i.e.
>>the last item is on top (this allows variable number of parameters
>>for user defined functions). It would happen in any C.
>
>It doesn't happen in "any" C.  While reverse order is commonly chosen
>by C implementations, 

I have no argument, just a clarification for those who belive that
C and reverse-args are inseperable ...

Rev-args IS usually chosen, because it facilitates variable-argument
functions like printf().  However, it isn't the only way to
do var-args.  And indeed, even knowing the order of the parms
on the stack doesn't give you a guarantee that they will always
be *evaluated* in that order.