On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:22 PM, mats petersson wrote:
>
>
> On 2 October 2015 at 22:07, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:01 PM, mats petersson
>> wrote:
>> > Since "varargs" often involve some kind of special passing mechanisms
>> > [I've
>> > seen implementations that build d
On 2 October 2015 at 22:07, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:01 PM, mats petersson
> wrote:
> > Since "varargs" often involve some kind of special passing mechanisms
> [I've
> > seen implementations that build data block and pass a pointer to that,
> > rather than passing on the s
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:01 PM, mats petersson wrote:
> Since "varargs" often involve some kind of special passing mechanisms [I've
> seen implementations that build data block and pass a pointer to that,
> rather than passing on the stack, for example], or additional code in the
> recipient funct
Since "varargs" often involve some kind of special passing mechanisms [I've
seen implementations that build data block and pass a pointer to that,
rather than passing on the stack, for example], or additional code in the
recipient function, I would say that `f2()` does not mean `f2(...)`.
--
Mats
Given the following two function declarations:
void f1(...);
void f2();
It makes sense to me that isVariadic() returns true for f1 in both C
and C++. It makes sense to me that isVariadic() returns false for f2
in C++. I am confused as to why it returns false instead of true for
C, however.
In C1
