On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:14:09AM +0200, Thomas Wei?schuh 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 Wei?schuh 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