From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13059 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2007 17:28:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 13010 invoked by uid 48); 17 Oct 2007 17:27:58 -0000 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:28:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20071017172758.13008.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/33097] Function decl trees without proper argument list In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "asl at math dot spbu dot ru" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg01556.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #13 from asl at math dot spbu dot ru 2007-10-17 17:27 ------- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > void foo2(some_fat_struct *ptr); but: > > int foo(...); > > > > This looks pretty unlogical to me. Was it intentional? > > Yes, I think that's intentional. Why is it unlogical? Because return type dictates, whether there is ellipsis or not. I think, that both functions should be varargs, no? > Also, have you looked at how character variables are handled? (appending string > length in the arg list) That's a surprising calling convention for people > coming from C... Yes, I saw this. It's pretty clear, not surprising :) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33097