Falk Hueffner wrote:
Jason Kraftcheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In practice, how can it be anything other than a void*?
It can't. You know, the "-pedantic" option is called "-pedantic" for a
Yes, but there's a difference between pedantic and pointless. Although
you've convinced me it is the f
Jason Kraftcheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In practice, how can it be anything other than a void*?
It can't. You know, the "-pedantic" option is called "-pedantic" for a
reason. It doesn't make a difference on any existing gcc platform, but
it would be possible to cnstruct a C99-compliant env
Falk Hueffner wrote:
Jason Kraftcheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The C standard says there's a difference between printing a void*
and a int* (or any other type)? How can a pointer passed through a
var-args list be anything but a void*? The C standard may say that
%p prints a void*, but isn't a
Jason Kraftcheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The C standard says there's a difference between printing a void*
> and a int* (or any other type)? How can a pointer passed through a
> var-args list be anything but a void*? The C standard may say that
> %p prints a void*, but isn't any pointer pa
Falk Hueffner wrote:
Jason Kraftcheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If the following is compiled with the options -Wall -pedantic-errors :
#include
int main( )
{
int i;
printf("%p\n", &i );
return 0;
}
gcc emits the following:
voidptr.c: In function `main':
voidptr.c:5: warning: void
Jason Kraftcheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the following is compiled with the options -Wall -pedantic-errors :
> #include
> int main( )
> {
> int i;
> printf("%p\n", &i );
> return 0;
> }
>
> gcc emits the following:
> voidptr.c: In function `main':
> voidptr.c:5:
Package: gcc-3.2
Version: 1:3.2.3-8
Severity: minor
If the following is compiled with the options -Wall -pedantic-errors :
#include
int main( )
{
int i;
printf("%p\n", &i );
return 0;
}
gcc emits the following:
voidptr.c: In function `main':
voidptr.c:5: warning: void fo
7 matches
Mail list logo
