home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.cs.ucla.edu!twinsun!not-for-mail
- From: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert)
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c
- Subject: Re: brief summary of Technical Corrigendum 2
- Date: 19 Jan 1996 00:12:14 -0800
- Organization: Twin Sun Inc, El Segundo, CA, USA
- Message-ID: <4dnjou$rmi@der.twinsun.com>
- References: <4d554m$q4b@news1.halcyon.com> <4dfgdt$se6@der.twinsun.com> <DLC97p.88M@stdc.demon.co.uk> <4dloed$oi1@info1.sdrc.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: der.twinsun.com
-
- scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes:
-
- > I suspect that what Paul meant to say was that the pairs cannot interleave.
-
- > VALID INVALID
- > ----------------- -----------------
- > va_start(a, foo); va_start(a, foo);
- > va_start(b, foo); va_start(b, foo);
- > va_end(b); va_end(a);
- > va_end(a); va_end(b);
-
- Sorry, I was too terse there. Here's what Gwyn's article says:
-
- In subclause 7.8.1, page 122, line 21, change:
- invoked
- to:
- invoked in corresponding pairs
-
- Append to subclause 7.8.1.1, page 122, line 29:
- `va_start' shall not be invoked again for the same `ap' without
- an intervening invocation of `va_end' for the same `ap'.
-
- So assuming a != b, both columns quoted above are conforming.
- But the following is not conforming:
-
- va_start(a, foo);
- va_start(a, foo);
- va_end(a);
- va_end(a);
-
- and that is what I meant when I wrote ``the pairs cannot nest''.
-