Re: MIfying stdarg.h and dropping varargs.h

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:34:49AM +0200, Klaus Klein wrote:
> > > C89 went out of its way and made an attempt to play nice with existing
> > > code.  POSIX-2008, as a particular profile of C99, doesn't need to.
> > 
> > I guess C89 wanted to play with the varargs.h mess. The question is --
> > do we care about this?
> 
> Why make life for strictly conforming C99 code harder than necessary by
> defining va_list?  (Or wrt. the C89 rationale, s/conforming/legacy/ and
> s/\(va_list\)/a particular \1/ :-).

I don't think it does, but I have adjusted the patch accordingly.

Joerg