Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!art@acc.arpa
From: art@acc.arpa
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: RE: type cast in initializer
Message-ID: <2124@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 31-Jan-86 19:08:54 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2124
Posted: Fri Jan 31 19:08:54 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Feb-86 04:56:35 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 23


 
> I've found the two lines
> 
> 	int	x = 0;
> 	char	*ptr = (char *) &x;
> 
> acceptable to every C compiler I've used, until running into the
> Whitesmith's C compiler.  They refuse to accept the type coercion "(char *)"
> on the second initialization.  As I read K&R this should be acceptable
> through the rules

The posting did not indicate whether the variables are static or auto.

The initializer should be legal if x is static, but not neccesarily if
x is declared as an auto.  If x is auto, the compiler could place it in
a register whose address cannot be taken.

The compiler should be smart enough to notice the address operator and
disallow register allocation.  K&R only states that variables declared
register cannot have their address taken.  Anyone know what ANSI says?

------