prototypes required ?

[Ron Guilmette]

In article <27098 at mimsy.umd.edu> chris at mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:
<In article <2173 at lupine.NCD.COM> rfg at NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:
<>Note that I said that on this particular machine, va_list is a *struct*
<>type (*not* a pointer to struct type).  Therefore, declaring the last
<>parameter for vprintf() as a void* is certainly not going to work right.
<
<True.  I made the assumption that the system on that machine actually
<worked...

Just to clarify, the <stdio.h> file that contained the travesty that I
described earlier was a part of somebody's broken version of an uncompleted
U*IX-like system.

It had not yet been fully tested and was not yet fully operational (as
should be evident, based upon the brokenness of the <stdio.h> file).

I apologize to all concerned if I gave you the impression that the bogus
declaration for vprintf() that I described came out of a working system.
It didn't.

-- 

// Ron Guilmette  -  C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg at ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.