From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 12 21:38:57 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: standards@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646C416A41C for ; Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:38:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from stefan@fafoe.narf.at) Received: from fafoe.narf.at (chello213047085026.6.14.vie.surfer.at [213.47.85.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0841543D48 for ; Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:38:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from stefan@fafoe.narf.at) Received: from wombat.fafoe.narf.at (wombat.fafoe.narf.at [192.168.1.42]) by fafoe.narf.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB1E3FA6; Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:38:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wombat.fafoe.narf.at (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 202D768; Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:38:50 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:38:49 +0200 From: Stefan Farfeleder To: Michael Reifenberger Message-ID: <20050612213848.GA81847@wombat.fafoe.narf.at> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Reifenberger , standards@freebsd.org References: <20050608094851.D29843@fw.reifenberger.com> <20050608103045.GC16848@wombat.fafoe.narf.at> <20050608124306.X30581@fw.reifenberger.com> <20050608125416.GA17962@wombat.fafoe.narf.at> <20050608152614.H31265@fw.reifenberger.com> <20050608164134.GC17962@wombat.fafoe.narf.at> <20050609115516.K35479@fw.reifenberger.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050609115516.K35479@fw.reifenberger.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libstand functions not ansi-c compiliant X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:38:57 -0000 On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 12:12:10PM +0200, Michael Reifenberger wrote: > > Ok. Back to the original question: > Is there a technical reason that the declaration and implementation of > putchar, vprintf and vsprintf in stand.h should NOT conform to ANSI-C > respective > is there a technical reason these functions MUST return void? I suppose there isn't. Stefan