Bug: Missing va_end() in cygwin_internal() (OT)

Fri Dec 31 22:10:00 GMT 2004

Dave Korn wrote:
> Well, it's only gcc for which we can be absolutely sure it's a no-op. It
> might be important to other compilers for all we know. 

The last architecture I'm aware of where it would make a difference was 
the old HP-3000 16-bit stack architecture (obsolete since 1986), where 
the arguments were laid out in the wrong order. (And it's way too old 
and obsolete to have a gcc port, anyway :-/).
Normally, args on such architectures are laid out such that the first 
argument is at a known (negative) offset from the stack frame base, and 
the others have increasing (negative) offsets. The HP-3000 was 
*ss-backwards, in that the first argument had the largest negative 
offset, with each succeeding argument having a smaller negative offset, 
so you had to go through incredible calisthenics to support varargs..
Max: keep looking for those nitpicky errors, though - the next one may 
be significant..
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/