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 <jonathan@dsg.stanford.edu, niklas@appli.se>
From: Olaf Seibert <rhialto@mbfys.kun.nl>
List: current-users
Date: 07/23/1995 23:18:29
Niklas Hallqvist <niklas@appli.se> 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.
-Olaf.
--
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.