Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:35256 comp.std.c:4129
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!rfg
From: rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: (void *) to function pointer
Message-ID: <3322@lupine.NCD.COM>
Date: 12 Jan 91 08:09:09 GMT
References: <1991Jan9.000809.9152@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au> <1037@mwtech.UUCP> <1991Jan11.174923.7250@zoo.toronto.edu>
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc., Mt. View, CA
Lines: 26

In article <1991Jan11.174923.7250@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Yes and no.  The wording of the standard implies, but does not quite
>state explicitly, that there is *some size* of integer that is big enough
>to hold a pointer.  There is no promise that `int' suffices; it might
>have to be `long', or even some nonstandardness like `long long'.

While we are on the subject, I just thought that I would mention a
simple way to drive your typical linker to rant and rave at you:

	void f () { }

	char c = (char) f;
	short s = (short) f;

	int main () { return 0; }


Most linkers cough up some rather interesting messages when confronted
by such programs.

-- 

// Ron Guilmette  -  C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.