This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
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
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html