Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #379356

Re: Call to a function

Show key headers only | View raw

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

> On 10/24/23 8:54 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> The point isn't quite the same.  The C standard explicitly says
>>>> integers may be converted to any pointer type.  The C standard
>>>> does not say that a pointer to an object type may be converted
>>>> to a pointer to function type.  Every implementation is within
>>>> its rights to reject any program whose static text includes[*] a
>>>> cast from a pointer to an object type to a pointer to function
>>>> type, regardless of whether the cast has any chance of being
>>>> executed.
>>>>
>>>> [*] meaning, still present as source of any preprocessor
>>>> conditionals have been processed, etc.
>>>
>>> I disagree.  (I think we've discussed this before.)
>>>
>>> Concretely, I believe that this program violates no syntax error
>>> or constraint.  It includes code whose behavior would be undefined
>>> if it were executed, but the `if (0)` prevents that.
>>>
>>> On what basis do you think a conforming implementation may reject
>>> it?
>>
>> First let me ask a question.  Does the C standard allow an
>> implementation to reject any program that is not strictly
>> conforming?
>
> [...]
>
> The standard never talks about rejection.  It requires that "A
> conforming hosted implementation shall accept any strictly
> conforming program.".  No such requirement applies to any program
> which is not strictly conforming.  (4p6)

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "reject".  If the question
were phrased "Does the C standard allow an implementation not to
accept any program that is not strictly conforming?", does your
comment above mean you would say Yes to that question?

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Call to a function Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-10-29 05:47 -0700
  Re: Call to a function Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-10-29 14:40 -0700
    Re: Call to a function Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-11-10 06:33 -0800
    Re: Call to a function Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-11-17 21:16 -0800
    Re: Call to a function Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-11-19 00:09 -0800
      Re: Call to a function Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-11-19 13:20 -0800
        Re: Call to a function Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-19 12:49 -0800
          Re: Call to a function Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 03:27 +0000
            Re: Call to a function Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-21 20:14 -0800
            Re: Call to a function scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-22 16:36 +0000
              Re: Call to a function Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 22:05 +0000
    Re: Call to a function James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-11-19 18:50 -0500
      Re: Call to a function Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-22 18:11 -0800
      Re: Call to a function James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-23 14:19 -0500

csiph-web