On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Johannes Sixt wrote: > On Montag, 20. Juli 2009, Jeff King wrote: > > > > OK, I guess I can buy the "don't use this unless you need it" rationale. > > But two questions: > > > > 1. _Are_ we sure it works under Windows? That is, do we know for a > > fact that using a va_list twice is OK there, or are we just going > > on the fact that nobody has reported the bug? > > We are sure (well, I am sure ;) that it worked on Windows with gcc 3. Not only that, but it's literally how people used to historically do things. Sure, some places do require 'va_copy()', and there's a reason why it got added in C99. But there's also a reason why it wasn't added earlier - because it didn't exist! So I agree with Johannes: we should _not_ make our compat version of 'snprintf()' use va_copy, for the simple reason that - modern C library versions will have a working snprintf already - old setups that don't have a working snprintf quite likely don't have a va_copy either. So the set of systems that need both the va_copy _and_ our compat version of snprintf is likely much smaller than the set of systems that would actively break compilation if they don't have va_copy. Of course, we could also add a new "NEEDS_VA_COPY" thing, and do #ifdef NEEDS_VA_COPY #define va_copy(dst,src) (dst) = (src) #endif or something like that. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html