🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4apkr7$8sp@rdsunx.crd.ge.com>, volpe@bart.crd.ge.com (Christopher
R. Volpe) writes: 
|> In article <4apgml$98i@newshost.lanl.gov>, tanmoy@qcd.lanl.gov (Tanmoy
Bhattacharya) writes: 
|> |>Is a compiler required to diagnose the mismatch of parameter types:
|> |>
|> |>void f(va_list*);
|> |>void g(int x,...) {
|> |> va_list y;
|> |> va_start (y,x);
|> |> f(y);
|> |> va_end(y);
|> |>}
|> |>
|> |>Or can the implementation allow it without warning?
|> |>
|> |>(Consider va_list == void* for example of why an implementation may want
to 
|> |>do it).
|> |>
|> 
|> Why would you want an implementation to allow you to pass a void* to a
|> function declared to take a void**?

Because with a prototype in scope, void* automatically gets _converted_ to
the right type: an explicit cast is not required. 

A compiler usually has no way of knowing what a void* is. For example, adding
a 

void* z = &y;

and calling f(z) is perfectly conformant program. The compiler may not be
smart enough to know the difference between f(z) and f(y) ... and hence I
believe a diagnostic is not required.

Is it desirable to allow va_list to be a (void*) was the actual question.

Cheers
Tanmoy
-- 
tanmoy@qcd.lanl.gov(128.165.23.46) DECNET: BETA::"tanmoy@lanl.gov"(1.218=1242)
Tanmoy Bhattacharya O:T-8(MS B285)LANL,NM87545 H:#9,3000,Trinity Drive,NM87544
Others see <gopher://yaleinfo.yale.edu:7700/00/Internet-People/internet-mail>,
<http://alpha.acast.nova.edu/cgi-bin/inmgq.pl>or<ftp://csd4.csd.uwm.edu/pub/
internetwork-mail-guide>. -- <http://nqcd.lanl.gov/people/tanmoy/tanmoy.html>
fax: 1 (505) 665 3003   voice: 1 (505) 665 4733    [ Home: 1 (505) 662 5596 ]