From: Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...>
Date: 2001-10-25T22:49:12+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:23292] Re: () vs (...) in header files

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, ts wrote:

> >>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
>
> P>  Suggestions?
>
>  Look at 1.7.*

I thought I had looked at 1.7 in CVS before I started anything, but I just
clicked on the top revision, which is 1.6...

Anyhow, there are still some problems with 1.7.  It uses a macro ANYARGS,
which is ... for C++ and empty for C.  This solves the problem of using
g++ 3.0.1, but doesn't solve the safety issue.  In particular:

1) rb_thread_select and rb_thread_wait_for take ANYARGS, but passing just
any old arguments to these functions is likely to crash your program.  I
once had a case where I accidentally passed the wrong type for the timeval
parameter, and it took me a while to figure out what was going on.
Changing these to use the correct arguments in the header does not appear
to break anything (at least in 1.6.5).

2) A less important issue, rb_define_method and friends take ANYARGS, but
I don't think it's ever legal for these functions to ever take a method
that doesn't have at least one VALUE parameter for self (so they should
take VALUE(*)__(VALUE, ...).

3) I think there could be similar issues as #2 for rb_iterate, rb_rescue,
etc.

4) rb_protect_inspect still takes a VALUE(*)().

Paul