Message-Id:	<200006061645.TAA18766@mailgw1.netvision.net.il>
Date:	Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:43:49 +0200
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.1.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10006061459050.1091-100000@acp3bf> (message from
	Hans-Bernhard Broeker on Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:09:06 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject:	Re: ANSI C and stdio.h
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 10006061459050 DOT 1091-100000 AT acp3bf>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:09:06 +0200 (MET DST)
> From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
>
> Actually, the only reason I can see for importing the definition of
> va_list into <stdio.h> is that the compiler cannot accept that header,
> without it.

Of course, it can.  It is perfectly valid C to have an undefined data
structure in a prototype of a function, as long as you don't call that
function, or do some manipulations with the undefined data type.

However, under a restrictive set of -Wfoo switches you could get a
warning.  Which is one more reason to have va_list known when stdio is
included.

- Raw text -