Article View: comp.std.c
Article #1997Re: legality of assignment of function to a void *.
From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 1990 14:35
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 1990 14:35
14 lines
1426 bytes
1426 bytes
In article <4e0cac89.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> blodgett@apollo.HP.COM (Bruce Blodgett) writes: >Was it really the intent of the ANSI C committee not to allow void >pointers from holding uncasted function addresses (in either >conforming or strictly conforming programs)? There seems to be general agreement among the X3J11 members I've discussed this with that void* need not be capable of holding pointer to function. A strictly conforming program could not so use it. A conforming program can do whatever it can get away with. Conforming implementations have the option whether or not to support the property in question. I would expect that only those environments requiring more data to specify function pointers than to specify object pointers would impose the restriction. (Well, also environments intended to assist in developing strictly conforming programs.)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<14506@smoke.brl.mil>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwynReferences:
<1990Nov13.174920.2235@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Nov14.031125.14027@athena.mit.edu> <4e0cac89.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: legality of assignment of function to a void *. Message-ID: <14506@smoke.brl.mil> Date: 17 Nov 90 14:35:26 GMT References: <1990Nov13.174920.2235@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Nov14.031125.14027@athena.mit.edu> <4e0cac89.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 14