[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Preserving ancient GCCs?
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
Main Index |
Thread Index |