Article View: comp.std.c
Article #1591Re: void*
From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 1990 13:23
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 1990 13:23
10 lines
964 bytes
964 bytes
In article <43.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP> rex@aussie.UUCP (Rex Jaeschke) writes: >Certainly void * and char * are required to have identical >representation. However, the two types are different types. Should a >REAL ANSI C compiler complain or not? Yes, I think a diagnostic is required. That's why the implementation of memchr() along the lines I suggested should not include the standard header. Indeed, I wouldn't include the relevant header in most implementations of standard library functions, since it usually isn't either necessary or useful to do so.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<13548@smoke.BRL.MIL>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwynReferences:
<13530@smoke.BRL.MIL> <43.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: void* Message-ID: <13548@smoke.BRL.MIL> Date: 14 Aug 90 13:23:22 GMT References: <13530@smoke.BRL.MIL> <43.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 10