Email List: Xaustin-group-lX
[All Lists]

RE: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem

To: "Schwarz, Konrad" <konrad.schwarz@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <austin-group-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem
From: "Wojtek Lerch" <Wojtek@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 12:06:59 -0400
References: <5030E566C603DA449D6B4C060CE529B73CEDCC@MCHP7RDA.ww002.siemens.net>
Thread-index: Acn7WujWGeMqB9+ARVOvty8p0UGcfwAS+nFQAAzQ9yAAkcWXMAAHE8fgAAWMtLA=
Thread-topic: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem
Right.  The smaller the intrusion into the C standard's domain, the
better.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schwarz, Konrad [mailto:konrad.schwarz@siemens.com] 
> Sent: July 6, 2009 9:28 AM
> To: austin-group-l@opengroup.org
> Subject: RE: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem
> 
> Actually, given that POSIX only really wants dlsym() to work, it might
> suffice to say
> that converting the return value of dlsym() to a pointer to a function
> returns a valid
> pointer to the function given by <name>. 
>  
> 
> 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>