------- Additional Comments From sebor at roguewave dot com 2005-04-11 17:33
-------
(In reply to comment #1)
Right. I understand why it doesn't compile and how to work around it (with gcc
at least). What I'm still not convinced of is that it's not a strict conformance
bug. The same point was raised in the discussion you pointed me to but I
couldn't find where it was addressed or if it was communicated to WG14. I.e.,
even if the requirement in C99 (that makes the test case well-formed) is
non-normative and bogus, strictly speaking this would still be a conformance bug
in the gcc implementation of va_list (after all, it is a gcc builtin, so it
seems that the compiler could do some magic whereby taking the address of a
va_list declared as an argument to a function would produce va_list* and not
va_list**).
Do you happen to know whether there's a C99 issue to fix the footnote?
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|target |c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20951
