Re: No format string passed to variable argument list function
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:24:14 -0800, Tim Rentsch wrote:
That's a good point. Considering those requirements, I can only agree that
the definition of object (or at least my interpretation of it) is too
broad, and whatever location holds a return address isn't or needn't be an
object.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:24:14 -0800, Tim Rentsch wrote:
Harald van =?UTF-8?b?RMSzaw==?= <truedfx@gmail. comwrites:
Despite 3.14 being worded the way it is, it seems clear that the term
"object" as it is used in the standard should be read as not including
return-address memory. Considering the requirements of 6.2.4, [...]
>On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:21:56 -0800, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>
>The storage for the return address is usually an object:
>[...]
Harald van =?UTF-8?b?RMSzaw==?= <truedfx@gmail. comwrites:
>I think whatever location is used to store the return address
>qualifies as an object, [...]
>
A return address is not a C value; hence storage for it is not an
object.
>I think whatever location is used to store the return address
>qualifies as an object, [...]
>
A return address is not a C value; hence storage for it is not an
object.
>The storage for the return address is usually an object:
>[...]
"object" as it is used in the standard should be read as not including
return-address memory. Considering the requirements of 6.2.4, [...]
the definition of object (or at least my interpretation of it) is too
broad, and whatever location holds a return address isn't or needn't be an
object.
Comment