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

[Don Cragun <dcragun@xxxxxxxxx>]

I apologize for the delay in responding to this...
I lost a hard drive Sunday morning.  I have installed a replacement and
am putting my system back together, but it is going to take am a couple
of days to recover and really get back on-line.

 - Don

Wojtek Lerch wrote:
> Don Cragun wrote:
> > David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> > > Huh? Of course it is possible for an interpretation containing
> mistakes,
> > > such as this one about C99, to be approved.
> > >
> > > C99 *never* requires warnings. It sometimes requires "diagnostics"
> > > (when "shall" conformance language is used in a constraint clause),
> > > but it never distinguishes between warnings and errors.
> > This is just a difference in terminology between the C and POSIX
> > standards.  In C a diagnostic is required as you has been described by
> > you and Fred.
> Excuse me?  Neither David-Sarah Hopwood nor Fred J. Tydeman demonstrated
> that casting void* to a function pointer is a constraint violation.  Or
> have I perhaps missed it?
>
> Here's the Constraints section of the cast operator (6.5.4):
>
> <quote>
> 2 Unless the type name specifies a void type, the type name shall
> specify qualified or unqualified scalar type and the operand shall have
> scalar type.
> 3 Conversions that involve pointers, other than where permitted by the
> constraints of 6.5.16.1, shall be specified by means of an explicit
> cast.
> <end quote>
>
> Since all pointers are scalar types (according to the definition in
> 6.2.5#21), the cast in question does not violate these constraints, does
> it?  Is there some other constraint it does violate that I missed?