At 15:40 +0100 29 Dec 2001, Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's what it looked like from the gdb trace. I'll keep your patch > solution around - even where __va_copy is defined for other archs it > should not hurt to use it and work on a copy of va_list, right?
Since archs that don't need __va_copy are passing va_lists by value they're working on a copy already. -- Aaron Schrab [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.execpc.com/~aarons/ "...this does not mean that some of us should not want, in a rather dispassionate sort of way, to put a bullet through csh's head." -- Larry Wall
