Hello. I'm working on a project with multiple files and all. Here is the code

void logf(...) // this will cause a seg fault
{
// do logging stuff
}

bit logf(...) // this will work just fine
{
// do logging stuff
return true;
}

I'm wondering why is it that when I use (...) for an argument, I must return a value or else it segfaults?

In article <cdgn2l$fk1$1@digitaldaemon.com>, clayasaurus says...
>
>Hello. I'm working on a project with multiple files and all. Here is the code
>
>void logf(...) // this will cause a seg fault
>{
>// do logging stuff
>}
>
>bit logf(...) // this will work just fine
>{
>// do logging stuff
>return true;
>}
>
>I'm wondering why is it that when I use (...) for an argument, I must return a value or else it segfaults?

oh! that's why! I experienced that and just remove the (...) parameter,
changing the API of the thing of course.
This is on DUI MessageDialog and nobody notice it. :(

Ant

argh! wtf?!

Ok, now I can use

void logf(...) fine, however, if i don't pass at least 2 parameters it causes it
to crash. :-|

Ok, here is something different but I think it is related some how. When I use writef it crashes, when i use printf it doesn't.

This must be a bug, right? (see attachment)

but if i pass two or more arguments into writef than it doesn't crash! help! these seg-faults are eating away at my sssanityyz ahh!@

and sometimes I have to pass at least 3 arguments or it causes it to crash.

i found it that it doesn't even seg fault inside the function.

just the act of passing less than two or three arguments causes it to seg fault.

a temporary solution is to pass 2 dummy arguments for my function like

void logf(int dummy, int dummy2, ...)
{
char[] message = stamp(std.utf.toUTF8(formatstring(_arguments, _argptr)));
gLogFile.writeString(message);
}

and it works. however it seems unnecessary and it's ugly. I hope there's a better way.

"clayasaurus" <clayasaurus_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cdgrdn$hig$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Ok, here is something different but I think it is related some how. When I
use
> writef it crashes, when i use printf it doesn't.
>
> This must be a bug, right? (see attachment)

I can't reproduce the problem with your example.

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:43:20 -0700, Walter wrote:

> 
> "clayasaurus" <clayasaurus_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cdgrdn$hig$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Ok, here is something different but I think it is related some how. When I
> use
>> writef it crashes, when i use printf it doesn't.
>>
>> This must be a bug, right? (see attachment)
> 
> I can't reproduce the problem with your example.

I can't either but I had the same problem,
I'll post it if I can reduce it to 10 lines

Ant