Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Abstract Syntax Tree for C programs
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 21:45:52 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <lnpnnrtj7j.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <feb250dd-88d8-41d0-9c19-8376f943f9a7@googlegroups.com> <FpfJE.631268$hy5.13238@fx34.am4> <KJfJE.16484$z55.5128@fx43.iad> <JVfJE.543410$6s.184655@fx39.am4> <lny32inxkm.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <bQhJE.1089975$da5.325050@fx13.am4> <slrn3o4gqfc5g7.3q4.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> <MhrJE.2515987$%SF.1149425@fx15.am4> <87ftop38c1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <u3wJE.564648$X23.407110@fx38.am4> <glojk2F5uueU3@mid.individual.net> <98193656-76f0-4718-9a97-a24ba0aa9b7c@googlegroups.com> <qd8ehj$gbv$1@dont-email.me> <4ff90bb7-33e5-4dcd-828f-b0d40f237420@googlegroups.com> <qd8kp3$kpv$1@dont-email.me> <8a72685f-2774-4187-98bf-c9ecd44b3240@googlegroups.com> <qd91a3$253$1@dont-email.me> <6ed2dfc1-a737-4fb3-b59a-3aa1c337061d@googlegroups.com> <qd947q$j77$1@dont-email.me> <OVVJE.2539733$%SF.516241@fx15.am4> <ln5zpjvdd8.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0ad8b66ef2f1a8fe8c740ae2f33d0263"; logging-data="8053"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX194wiEetWzNXijXPkuoXu1e"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qzqd97doXTlUnnSeExosMTGdUTg= sha1:FRrx40/wRqCHUDtENPE9kiCgoLE=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:144514

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
[...]
> "gcc -std=c11 -pedantic" warns that "ISO C forbids conversion of
> object pointer to function pointer type".  I believe that message is
> incorrect.  ISO C doesn't define the behavior of such a conversion,
> but it doesn't forbid it (it doesn't violate a constraint or syntax
> rule).  But if you're writing code that depends on POSIX features,
> you're probably not going to use "-std=c11 -pedantic".

I reported this as a bug in gcc back in 2017:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83584

(I disagree with the way it's been resolved, but I suggest not
re-arguing that here.  I think we've discussed it before.)

FWIW, clang doesn't complain about the pointer conversion, even with
"-std=c11 -Weverything".  I might argue that it *should* complain about
it with "-Weverything", but not with "-pedantic".

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */