Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!haven!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Function argument type conversions...
Message-ID: <104@twwells.uucp>
Date: 20 Oct 88 00:29:04 GMT
References: <8810111921.AA21683@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU> <14027@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 17
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:

In article <14027@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
: In article <8810111921.AA21683@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU> U23405@UICVM.Berkeley.EDU
: (Michael J. Steiner) writes:
: >What I would like to know is if all function parameters (formal and actual)
: >agree in type, will there still be problems with taking the address of a
: >passed variable, (among other little things)?
:
: ...
:
: In some existing compilers, yes, unless you stick with `int', `long',
: `double', and pointer function parameters.

What about unsigned int and (for those compilers that support it)
unsigned long?

---
Bill
novavax!proxftl!twwells!bill