Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!bionet!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!mailrus!bbn!mit-eddie!mit-vax!waldemar
From: waldemar@mit-vax.LCS.MIT.EDU (Waldemar Horwat)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Type Compatibility
Message-ID: <5490@mit-vax.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: 21 Jan 89 16:13:26 GMT
References: <5485@mit-vax.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, Cambridge
Lines: 20

>   f1(pb);   //1
>   g1(pb);   //2
>   i1(b);    //4
>   f2(ppb);  //5
>   g2(ppb);  //6
>   h2(pb);   //7
>   i2(pb);   //8

I tested the following two compilers so far and got different results:

AT&T CFront 1.2.1 2/16/87 accepts all seven statements and produces the
expected code.

GNU g++ 1.25.0 accepts all statements except 5.  I find it unusual that it can
coerce **B to **A but not **B to **void.

Given the diversity of compiler behavior in this area, I am curious as to what
the "right" behavior, if any, is.

				Waldemar Horwat