------- Comment #13 from asl at math dot spbu dot ru 2007-10-17 17:27 ------- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > void foo2(some_fat_struct *ptr); but: > > int foo(...); > > > > This looks pretty unlogical to me. Was it intentional? > > Yes, I think that's intentional. Why is it unlogical? Because return type dictates, whether there is ellipsis or not. I think, that both functions should be varargs, no?
> Also, have you looked at how character variables are handled? (appending > string > length in the arg list) That's a surprising calling convention for people > coming from C... Yes, I saw this. It's pretty clear, not surprising :) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33097
