| 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>. > > > |
| Previous by Date: | RE: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem, Wojtek Lerch |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem, Wojtek Lerch |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem, Wojtek Lerch |
| Next by Thread: | RE: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem, Wojtek Lerch |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |