------- Comment #9 from James dot Juran at baesystems dot com 2007-01-24 17:22 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > What about a warning about __builtin_stdarg_start being deprecated? That will > be clearer than the current warning, and we can still keep backwards > compatibility (the user may use -Wno-deprecated to work-around the warning and > GCC will replace __builtin_stdarg_start with __builtin_va_start). > > Does this seem OK?
Marking __builtin_stdarg_start as deprecated sounds like a good idea, although it seems it could also just be removed entirely as Andrew suggested. If you do keep it around as deprecated, it would seem to make sense to also apply the patch Andrew provided to keep the strange "second parameter of 'va_start' not last named argument" warning from happening. I'm not a GCC developer, just a user, so please weight my opinions appropriately :-) James -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26264
