🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov6.014500.1353@netcom.com> rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
>Must a standard conforming implementation accept:

s/standard conforming implementation/conforming implementation/

>	#include <stdarg.h>
>	int i, j;
>	va_list ap;
>	void foo (int bar, ...) {
>		i = (va_start (ap, bar), 99);
>		j = (va_end (ap), 88);
>	}
>In other words, may a programmer safely assume that invocations (or
>expansions) of va_start and va_end are themselves expressions?
>The function declarations shown in 4.8.1.1 and 4.8.1.2 seem to suggest
>that the answer is yes.

4.8.1, page 123 lines 17 to 19, says that va_start and va_arg must
be macros, while va_end may be either macro or identifier.  However,
if we interpret the function declarations as specifying usage syntax,
then I would say that they must be expressions, as you say.

The va_list ap; declaration must be moved inside the function.
4.8, page 123 lines 11 to 12.  Ah wait a minute.  The function has to
have this declaration, not necessarily a definition.  So you can keep
the file scope one (with external linkage at that) and just copy it
into the function as well.  I wonder if this is a bug (different rule
from what was intended) in the standard.
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@jit081.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
"It's been a lovely recession."