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

[Shankar Unni]

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:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/