Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!mozart.amd.com!proton!tim
From: tim@proton.amd.com (Tim Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: C SYNTAX QUESTION
Message-ID: <1991Feb1.155656.27244@mozart.amd.com>
Date: 1 Feb 91 15:56:56 GMT
References: <43415@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Sender: usenet@mozart.amd.com (Usenet News)
Reply-To: tim@amd.com (Tim Olson)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Austin, TX
Lines: 33

In article <43415@nigel.ee.udel.edu> HBO043%DJUKFA11.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Christoph van Wuellen) writes:
| Is this correct, and if so, why?
| 
| test()
| {
| int i;
| void void_function();
| 
| ...
| 
| i ?  void_function() : 0;
| }
| 
| In GNU GAS, file obstack.h, many macros of such type are declared, and
| my c68/c386 compiler complains about that..

Yes, it should.  void and int are incompatible types.

| Of course,
| 
| i ? void_function() : (void) 0;
| 
| works. c68 knows that 0 is a legal pointer of any type in the Syntax, but
| what about void?

Yes, 0 is a legal pointer of any type, including void, but
void_function() is of type "void", not "void *".


--
	-- Tim Olson
	Advanced Micro Devices
	(tim@amd.com)