This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: why this testcase compile failed for gcc.

From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
To: zhang qingshan <steven dot zhang54373 at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:22:07 -0800
Subject: Re: why this testcase compile failed for gcc.
References: <AANLkTimvRH-7kexujd8+an6DiD6jXCu5Xj17Hifwnfmg@mail.gmail.com> <mcr7hcx9ym5.fsf@google.com> <AANLkTinWoxRFJ_TFGK2_PTfuvuK7YW4bw4g=Lpns65DZ@mail.gmail.com>

zhang qingshan <steven.zhang54373@gmail.com> writes:

> IMO, function pointer is a pointer which its type descriptor is a
> function type ...
>
> Any difference with the normal pointer?

The C standard does not require that a function pointer use the same
representation as any other type of pointer.  In particular, on
processors with Harvard architectures, function pointers and regular
pointers are inherently different.

Ian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: why this testcase compile failed for gcc.
  - From: Andi Hellmund

References:
- why this testcase compile failed for gcc.
  - From: zhang qingshan
- Re: why this testcase compile failed for gcc.
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: why this testcase compile failed for gcc.
  - From: zhang qingshan

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]