Re: Preserving ancient GCCs?

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:19:10AM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
 > Ignatios Souvatzis <is%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:
 > 
 > > On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 11:52:06PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
 > >> Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> writes:
 > >> 
 > >> > is there a good reason for keeping lang/gcc and lang/gcc3?
 > >> 
 > >> Yes, there exists software that requires varargs, which entails using
 > >> gcc 2.95 for development.
 > >
 > > Couldn't that be rewritten to stdarg? I did this with some package
 > > 10 years ago...
 > 
 > You still need development tools while you're rewriting it.

Or a hack version of varargs.h, like this:

   ------
#define va_alist  int _va_, ...
#define va_decl   int _va_, ...
#define va_start(ap) \
    (__builtin_va_start(ap, _va_), (ap) = (va_list)((char *)ap - sizeof(int)))
#define va_arg __builtin_va_arg
#define va_end __builtin_va_end
   ------

Not portable, but then, neither is gcc 2.95.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost