Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/8] compat: provide a fallback va_copy definition
- From
Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 24, 2011, 15:57 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTin7NBx5NVRkHpgymcZfnaZaJehMMpPv=zD+cKtV@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20110224142647.GA15477@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 29 quoted lines
> va_copy is C99. Prior to this, the usual procedure was to > simply copy the va_list by assignment. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> > --- > We have avoided using va_copy many times in the past, which has led to a > bunch of cut-and-paste. From everything I found searching the web, > implementations have historically either provided va_copy or just let > your code assume that simple assignment of worked. I couldn't find any > mention of any other alternatives. > > So my guess is that this will be sufficient, but I we won't really know > for sure until somebody reports a problem. :( > > git-compat-util.h | 4 ++++ > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/git-compat-util.h b/git-compat-util.h > index 9c23622..00d41e4 100644 > --- a/git-compat-util.h > +++ b/git-compat-util.h > @@ -535,6 +535,10 @@ void git_qsort(void *base, size_t nmemb, size_t size, > #define fstat_is_reliable() 1 > #endif > > +#ifndef va_copy > +#define va_copy(dst,src) (dst) = (src) > +#endif > +
Wouldn't it be even more portable to fall back on use __va_copy (if present), as suggested by Junio in <7vbpip86q5.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>? He also suggested using memcpy instead of assignment in the same e-mail, due to a recommendation in the Autoconf manual.
There's already a va_copy fall-back in compat/msvc.h, perhaps this should be removed?