NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/comp/lang/c/12291

Text File | 1992-08-13 | 1.7 KB | 42 lines

Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!sasghm
From: [e-mail] (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Is "...", instead of ",..." legal ?
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:31:30 GMT
References:  <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: theseus.unx.sas.com
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Keywords: variable arguments
Lines: 27


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott Humphreys) writes:
|> In various books describing the expansion to ANSI-C,
|> one of the differences is described as the inclusion
|> of the ",..." operator for function prototypes
|> [ meaning that a variable number of arguments follow-
|>   e.g. int printf (const char *, ...);  ]
|>
|> My question is: is this legal : int foo (...);
|>
|> That is - can I legally declare a function
|> with none or many arguments, or does it HAVE to have
|> at least one argument.
|>
|> This came up because gcc version 2.2.2 let me do it,
|> but gave a warning when used with the -pedantic option.
|> Another tool I used (gnu GCT version 1.3) bombed on this construct.

This is non-ANSI, but some compilers permit it.  (Generally what
it really means is "Here's a prototype, so don't annoy me with
a message about a missing prototype for this function.  But I
won't give you a clue about what the parameters are, so don't even
try to check them.")
--
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / [phone]
[e-mail] ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm