This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Bug: Missing va_end() in cygwin_internal() (OT)

Dave Korn wrote:

Well, it's only gcc for which we can be absolutely sure it's a no-op. It
might be important to other compilers for all we know.

The last architecture I'm aware of where it would make a difference was the old HP-3000 16-bit stack architecture (obsolete since 1986), where the arguments were laid out in the wrong order. (And it's way too old and obsolete to have a gcc port, anyway :-/).

Normally, args on such architectures are laid out such that the first argument is at a known (negative) offset from the stack frame base, and the others have increasing (negative) offsets. The HP-3000 was *ss-backwards, in that the first argument had the largest negative offset, with each succeeding argument having a smaller negative offset, so you had to go through incredible calisthenics to support varargs..

Max: keep looking for those nitpicky errors, though - the next one may be significant..

-- Unsubscribe info: Problem reports: Documentation: FAQ:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]