Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: void*
Message-ID: <13548@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 14 Aug 90 13:23:22 GMT
References: <13530@smoke.BRL.MIL> <43.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <43.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP> rex@aussie.UUCP (Rex Jaeschke) writes:
>Certainly void * and char * are required to have identical 
>representation. However, the two types are different types. Should a 
>REAL ANSI C compiler complain or not?

Yes, I think a diagnostic is required.  That's why the implementation of
memchr() along the lines I suggested should not include the standard
header.  Indeed, I wouldn't include the relevant header in most
implementations of standard library functions, since it usually isn't
either necessary or useful to do so.