Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site jc3b21.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akguc!codas!peora!ucf-cs!usfvax2!3b2bame!jc3b21!larry
From: larry@jc3b21.UUCP (Lawrence F. Strickland)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  Pointer to function
Message-ID: <136@jc3b21.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Jan-86 16:06:50 EST
Article-I.D.: jc3b21.136
Posted: Tue Jan 14 16:06:50 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jan-86 06:03:05 EST
Organization: St. Petersburg Jr. College, FL
Lines: 44


In the article headed:

	From: dave@andromeda.UUCP (Dave Bloom)
	Newsgroups: net.lang.c
	Subject: Pointers to Functions
	Message-ID: <59@andromeda.UUCP>
	Date: Thu, 9-Jan-86 13:46:33 EST

Dave Bloom says:
> 
> Here's a good(?) question. Lets say I have this:
> 
> main()
> {
> 	int a(), b();  /* defined somewhere else */
> 	int (*c)();    /* a pointer to a function returning int (K&R pg141) */
> 		.
> 		.
> 		.
> 	c = b;
> 	(*c)(some arguments);
> }
> 
> Our compiler claims c is an "illegal function"
...
> Looks like I'm missing something. Can anyone out the lend me a hand???
> What is it that's wrong in example one? How can I declare a generic pointer
> to an int-function, set it equal to the address of a valid int function,
> and use it instead of the function????
> 

The above program compiles correctly on a 3b2 Computer running under
System V.2.  Apparently, the problem is with the compiler used!

What are the results on other compilers out there?  Mail to me and I will
summarize and post.

-----Larry Strickland
     St. Petersburg Jr. College
     P.O. Box 13489
     St. Petersburg, FL 33733

UseNet:   ...akgua!akguc!codas!peora!ucf-cs!usfvax2!3b2bame!jc3b21!larry