Article View: comp.std.c
Article #1967Re: legality of assignment of function to a void *.
From: Henry Spencer
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 1990 17:49
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 1990 17:49
20 lines
1332 bytes
1332 bytes
In article <1990Nov12.211511.2344@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> lijewski@theory.tn.cornell.edu (Mike Lijewski) writes:
>Is a standard conforming compiler required to issue an error
>diagnostic for the following code. Thanks.
>
>double f(double x) { return x * x; }
> void *ptr = f;
Function pointers are a whole different universe from normal pointers, in
principle. Free conversions to and from `void *' are allowed only for
normal pointers (see 3.3.16.1 and the cross-reference to it in 3.5.7).
Your example is not in the list of allowable combinations of operands
for `=' in 3.3.16.1's Constraints section, so you are breaking the law
and the compiler is required to diagnose it, unless I have missed some
subtlety.
Your compiler might choose to allow `void *ptr = (void *)f;', however,
as an extension.
--
"I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1990Nov13.174920.2235@zoo.toronto.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!henryReferences:
<1990Nov12.211511.2344@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.std.c Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!henry From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: legality of assignment of function to a void *. Message-ID: <1990Nov13.174920.2235@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <1990Nov12.211511.2344@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 90 17:49:20 GMT