Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | variadic function |
| Date | 2011-11-05 22:32 +0000 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <j94dhl$6ua$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
Consider the variadic function with the following prototype: int foo(int num,...); Here 'num' specifies the number of arguments, and assume that all the arguments that should be passed to this function are of type int. (My question has nothing to do with the definition of the function foo, so don't bother about it.) If I call the function as: foo(2,3,4,5,6,7,8);/*More arguments than expected*/ Here I call foo with too many arguments than expected by its definition. Assuming that the prototype is visible in the scope of the function call and the definition of function foo itself does NOT produce any UB, please tell me if this function call produces UB or not. I am not able to find any explicit clause from C99 which deals with this behavior. Though I find that: 7.19.6.1 The fprintf function The fprintf function writes output to the stream pointed to by stream, under control of the string pointed to by format that specifies how subsequent arguments are converted for output. If there are insufficient arguments for the format, the behavior is undefined. If the format is exhausted while arguments remain, the excess arguments are evaluated (as always) but are otherwise ignored. This is highly specific to fprintf. I wonder if it applies to all variadic functions. Can I assume that the behavior of this function call is UB by ommission? Or am I missing something, here? QP *** This email and any file attachments(s) are confidential, may be legally privileged, and are intended solely for use by the identified recipient (s). If you received the email in error, please notify the sender and delete the message and any copies completely from your computer. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, in whole or in part, by any unintended or unauthorized recipient is prohibited and may subject you to liability under 18 U.S.C. sec. 2511. Jameston Solutions, Inc. assumes no liability and makes no warranties or representations that the email or any file attachments are totally secure and/or virus free. The recipient is advised to check for viruses prior to opening any file attached to the email. Statements contained in the email or any file attachment may not be authorized or endorsed by Jameston Solutions, Inc. Jameston Solutions, Inc. accepts no liability, whether in contract, tort, or equity, for any unauthorized statement or offer of contract communicated in the email or any file attached by the sender. No employee or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of Jameston Solutions, Inc with another party by email without express written confirmation WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
variadic function Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2011-11-05 22:32 +0000
Re: variadic function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-05 15:50 -0700
Re: variadic function Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2011-11-07 17:41 +0000
Re: variadic function James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-05 18:53 -0400
Re: variadic function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-05 16:35 -0700
Re: variadic function Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-06 01:36 +0000
Re: variadic function Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-06 01:31 +0000
Re: variadic function Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2011-11-06 09:45 -0800
Re: variadic function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-06 11:38 -0800
Re: variadic function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 23:24 -0800
Re: variadic function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-25 02:54 -0800
Re: variadic function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-31 18:22 -0800
Re: variadic function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-31 21:50 -0800
Re: variadic function James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-01 07:55 -0500
Re: variadic function Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-02-01 08:06 -0500
Re: variadic function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-01 11:42 -0800
Re: variadic function Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-02-01 16:15 +0000
Re: variadic function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-01 11:41 -0800
Re: variadic function Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-02-01 13:41 -0500
Re: variadic function blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-02-01 10:45 -0800
Re: variadic function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-08 10:30 -0800
Re: variadic function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-03-08 13:57 -0800
Re: variadic function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-09 13:10 -0800
Re: variadic function jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-03-11 07:56 +0000
Re: variadic function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-11 13:01 -0700
Re: variadic function jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-03-12 19:04 +0000
Re: variadic function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-13 15:05 -0700
csiph-web