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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #349688

Re: Call to a function

Show all headers | View raw

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?

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> - 2023-10-24 20:54 -0700
  Re: Call to a function Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2023-10-24 21:27 -0700
  Re: Call to a function Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-10-24 21:58 -0700
  Re: Call to a function James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-10-25 01:13 -0400
    Re: Call to a function Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-10-25 06:46 +0000
  Re: Call to a function Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-10-25 06:37 +0000

csiph-web