> i didn't see anything in the definition that would make va_copy > wrong given the plan 9 definition of va_list. is there a particular > case on plan 9 that would be a problem?
it might make sense to *have* va_copy, but since plan 9 programs don't use va_copy, there's no need to provide an implementation. and honestly, the fewer people who use va_copy, the better. > but plan 9 does have va_start and va_end. wouldn't make sense > to have va_copy as well? plan 9 makes no claims of being C99 compliant, although it happens to have a few of the same extensions. va_start, va_end, and va_arg are from an earlier standard. those (in particular va_arg) provide useful functionality. va_copy does not. like i said, if you need it, it's easy to put a #define in your own compatibility headers. if you don't need it, don't worry about it. russ
