Subject: Re: strict typechecking on kernel compiles [was Re: Why is using "inline" as a variable name a parse error for our compiler? ...]
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com>
From: Olaf Seibert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/23/1995 23:18:29
Niklas Hallqvist <email@example.com> wrote:
> Does this mean *not* using prototypes at all would be more efficient?
> I thought it to mean an implied ellipsis were there. Isn't it so?
I don't have the standard with me, so I can't check now if void func();
is *defined* to be equivalent to void func(...);, but I think it's not
(if only for the reason that stdarg functions must have at least one
real argument before the ..., to give va_start() something to handle),
but in practice they are mostly equivalent. For example, the promotion
of shorts to ints and floats to doubles works the same for both.
Have you indecently fucked this Exon idiot and his allies today?
___ Copyright 1995 Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert. All Rights Reserved.
\X/ You are not allowed to read this using any kind of Micro$oft product.