Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!camelback!volpe
From: volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: is (int (*)())NULL legal when NULL is (void *)0?
Message-ID: <13799@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 14 Nov 90 18:00:32 GMT
References: <1391@gtx.com> <14457@smoke.brl.mil>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Lines: 21

In article <14457@smoke.brl.mil>, gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
|>In article <1391@gtx.com> randy@gtx.UUCP (Randy D. Miller) writes:
|>-Can NULL always be cast to a function pointer, even in implementations
|>-that legally define NULL as (void *)0?  For example, are the following
|>-lines legal?
|>-   /* example 1 */     int (*f1)(void) = NULL;
|>-   /* example 2 */     int (*f2)(void) = (int (*)(void))NULL;
|>
|>No, the second is not required to be supported by the implementation,
|>but the first is (3.2.2.3).

What's wrong with the second example? A null pointer constant 
represented by "(void *)0" is first cast to a function pointer (perfectly
legal), and the resulting expression is assigned to the variable
f2, of identical type, which should also be legal. Can you explain the
problem?
         
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com