On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:14:09AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > Hi Willy! > > On 2023-08-29 08:28:27+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 10:00:15AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > This allows nolic to work with `-nostdinc` avoiding any reliance on > > > system headers. > > > > > > The implementation has been lifted from musl libc 1.2.4. > > > There is already an implementation of stdarg.h in include/linux/stdarg.h > > > but that is GPL licensed and therefore not suitable for nolibc. > > > > I'm a bit confused because for me, stdarg was normally provided by the > > compiler, but I could be mistaken. It's just that it reminds me not so > > old memories. Therefore maybe we just need to include or define > > "something" to use it. > > It is indeed provided by the compiler. OK. But then, doesn't it mean that if we don't provide our stdarg.h, the compilers' will be used ? I'm asking because we're already using va_list and va_args, for example in vfprintf() in stdio.h, which precisely includes <stdarg.h> so it must indeed come from the compiler. > I could not find anybody doing this differently. > Using builtins seems to me to be the normal way to expose compiler > implementation specifics. OK but it's already what the compiler does itself in its own stdarg that is provided. That's why I don't understand what specific case we're trying to cover here, I feel like we're providing an alternate stdarg in case the compiler doesn't provide one except that I've not seen a compiler not provide it (even tcc comes with it), it's like stddef. Thanks, Willy
