------- Comment #27 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-11 20:04 ------- (In reply to comment #26) > >This code does not compile in GCC, and so is not portable. > No it is not portable because that code is just plain invalid; though MS > accepts it as it is implementing something called "move constructor" as an > extension.
I already told you "you can't because you can't" (or in this case "is plain invalid") is not an answer. Please explain concisely: a) If GCC is cdecl compliant should it put the parameters on the stack as the figure 3-48 shows? Can you quote any standard that there is any exception that GCC can take advantage of and still claim to be cdecl-compliant? b) When I code &format shouldn't GCC give me the address of the format parameter on the stack? Can you quote any standard that shows that the quote I shoewd you of C99 has an exception anywhere that is applicable to this case? Both in a) and b) the answer should be yes. A good non-buggy compiler will do both things a)+b), as Microsoft does (without any extension). If GCC can be made to do a)+b) simultaneously then don't worry about the portability of my code because I just need a)+b) together and I will have no problem, just leave the rest to me and don't you worry. I think it would settle the issue if you could just simply answer these 2 questions a) and b) directly and clearly. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45249
