From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Jan 20 14:06:39 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA10586
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:06:39 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current)
Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA10549
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:06:21 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from sef@kithrup.com)
Received: (from sef@localhost)
	by kithrup.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) id OAA18817
	for current@freebsd.org; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:06:21 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from sef)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:06:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com>
Message-Id: <199801202206.OAA18817@kithrup.com>
To: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Nasty GCC bug?
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>Is is an artifact of the calling convention, which is implementation
>defined.

No, it is not.

Variardic functions ARE REQUIRED TO USE OLD-STYLE PROMOTION RULES.

REQUIRED.

As in MANDAATORY.

Further, printf then treats the argument as int; this is also required by the
standard.

>It has *NOT* "always been the case"; on systems which do not use an
>integer stack based calling convention, the value can be treated as
>its type by the varradic function, instead of being treated as an int.
>It is the promotion caused by the calling convention that is the
>source of the breakage.

It *has* always been the case; not doing it this way is a bug.  yes, there
have been buggy implementations, and some of those are even superior ot the
correct, required implementation.

If I still had my copy of ANSI C, I could tell you the exact paragraph numbers
that require this behaviour.  As it is, I quoted man pages at you, and other
peopl ehave quoted man pages at you.

Terry, you are *WRONG*.  Admit it.