Hi
I have program1.c:
typedef int (*fn_t)(int);
int fn( int f ){
return f;
}
int main( void ){
fn_t f= fn;
return f( 0 );
}
and program2.c
typedef int (*fn_t)(int);
int fn( int f ){
return f;
}
int main( void ){
fn_t f= fn;
return (*f)( 0 );
}
They both compile with no errors/warnings/comments under
gcc -Wall -ansi -pedantic
and in fact produce identical executables.
What is the story with function pointers? Is it good style to
dereference them to call them? Gcc doesn't even complain about return
(**f)(0); !
I would have guessed that since I can write f= fn; that f and fn have the
same type, but then Gcc doesn't complain about f= & fn; either, which
makes more sense when you look at the typedef.
So should I write f= fn or f= &fn, and should I write f(0); or (*f)(0);
The former in each case is what you would do if functions were like an
array type, and the latter makes sense if pointers were like scalars.
Surely the standard can't permit both - that seems quite sloppy.
Thanks,
viza
12  3907 
On Jul 1, 9:11 pm, viza <tom.v...@gmil.comwrote:
Hi
I have program1.c:
typedef int (*fn_t)(int);
int fn( int f ){
return f;
}
int main( void ){
fn_t f= fn;
return f( 0 );
}
and program2.c
typedef int (*fn_t)(int);
int fn( int f ){
return f;
}
int main( void ){
fn_t f= fn;
return (*f)( 0 );
}
They both compile with no errors/warnings/comments under
gcc -Wall -ansi -pedantic
and in fact produce identical executables.
What is the story with function pointers? Is it good style to
dereference them to call them? Gcc doesn't even complain about return
(**f)(0); !
Dereferencing a function pointer does nothing.
I would have guessed that since I can write f= fn; that f and fn have the
same type, but then Gcc doesn't complain about f= & fn; either, which
makes more sense when you look at the typedef.
So should I write f= fn or f= &fn, and should I write f(0); or (*f)(0);
I prefer f = fn. As for the latter, some programmers/projects prefer
to have (*f)(0) to make clear 'f' is a function pointer; I prefer f(0)
though.
The former in each case is what you would do if functions were like an
array type, and the latter makes sense if pointers were like scalars.
Function pointers are scalars. But the effect of * and & does not
apply to them.
Surely the standard can't permit both - that seems quite sloppy.
It does vi******@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 9:11 pm, viza <tom.v...@gmil.comwrote:
>Hi
I have program1.c:
typedef int (*fn_t)(int);
int fn( int f ){
return f;
}
int main( void ){
fn_t f= fn;
return f( 0 );
}
and program2.c
typedef int (*fn_t)(int);
int fn( int f ){
return f;
}
int main( void ){
fn_t f= fn;
return (*f)( 0 );
}
They both compile with no errors/warnings/comments under
gcc -Wall -ansi -pedantic
and in fact produce identical executables.
What is the story with function pointers? Is it good style to
dereference them to call them? Gcc doesn't even complain about return
(**f)(0); !
Dereferencing a function pointer does nothing.
>I would have guessed that since I can write f= fn; that f and fn have the
same type, but then Gcc doesn't complain about f= & fn; either, which
makes more sense when you look at the typedef.
So should I write f= fn or f= &fn, and should I write f(0); or (*f)(0);
I prefer f = fn. As for the latter, some programmers/projects prefer
to have (*f)(0) to make clear 'f' is a function pointer; I prefer f(0)
though.
>The former in each case is what you would do if functions were like an
array type, and the latter makes sense if pointers were like scalars.
Function pointers are scalars. But the effect of * and & does not
apply to them.
That's very close to being correct.
But if it were correct,
then (&&f)(0) would mean the same thing as (&f)(0),
and it doesn't.
(&&f)(0) is undefined.
An expression of function type is converted to an
expression of pointer type, in all but two contexts:
1 & (function type expression)
2 sizeof(function type expression)
Since sizeof is not defined for expressions of function type,
the only thing that you can do
with an expression of function type
in a correct C program, is to derive a pointer from it.
A function call is described a pointer to a function type expression
followed by the function call operator,
which is the parentheses in a function call.
So, if func is the name of a function
in a function call,
it is converted to a pointer.
func();
does the same thing as
(&func)();
In
(*func)();
the name of the function is converted to a pointer implicitly;
the indirection operator yields an expression of function type
and that expression is converted to a pointer.
So,
(*********************************func)();
also does the same thing as
func();
But with
(&func)();
you have the result of the address operator
from a function type operand.
That's a function pointer, and if you apply & to that,
you get the address of the result of the address operator
and that means nothing.
--
pete
On Jul 1, 11:28 pm, pete <pfil...@mindspring.comwrote:
vipps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 9:11 pm, viza <tom.v...@gmil.comwrote:
The former in each case is what you would do if functions were like an
array type, and the latter makes sense if pointers were like scalars.
Function pointers are scalars. But the effect of * and & does not
apply to them.
That's very close to being correct.
But if it were correct,
then (&&f)(0) would mean the same thing as (&f)(0),
and it doesn't.
(&&f)(0) is undefined.
No, I'm correct. (&&f)(0) is a syntax error. && is the logical
operator, it has nothing to do with my claim that the effect of '&'
does not apply to function pointers.
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:37:43 -0700, vippstar wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:28 pm, pete <pfil...@mindspring.comwrote:
>vipps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 9:11 pm, viza <tom.v...@gmil.comwrote:
The former in each case is what you would do if functions were like
an array type, and the latter makes sense if pointers were like
scalars.
Function pointers are scalars. But the effect of * and & does not
apply to them.
That's very close to being correct.
But if it were correct,
then (&&f)(0) would mean the same thing as (&f)(0), and it doesn't.
(&&f)(0) is undefined.
No, I'm correct. (&&f)(0) is a syntax error. && is the logical operator,
it has nothing to do with my claim that the effect of '&' does not apply
to function pointers.
pete surely meant (& &f)(0). He is correct that this is not allowed in C,
because &f does have an effect: it takes the address of function f, and
gives an rvalue[1] expression of type pointer-to-function. You cannot
apply the operator twice, because you cannot apply the unary & operator to
_any_ rvalue.
[1] value of object type that is not an lvalue
On Jul 2, 1:56 am, Harald van D©¦k <true...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:37:43 -0700, vippstar wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:28 pm, pete <pfil...@mindspring.comwrote:
vipps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 9:11 pm, viza <tom.v...@gmil.comwrote:
The former in each case is what you would do if functions were like
an array type, and the latter makes sense if pointers were like
scalars.
Function pointers are scalars. But the effect of * and & does not
apply to them.
That's very close to being correct.
But if it were correct,
then (&&f)(0) would mean the same thing as (&f)(0), and it doesn't.
(&&f)(0) is undefined.
No, I'm correct. (&&f)(0) is a syntax error. && is the logical operator,
it has nothing to do with my claim that the effect of '&' does not apply
to function pointers.
pete surely meant (& &f)(0). He is correct that this is not allowed in C,
because &f does have an effect: it takes the address of function f, and
gives an rvalue[1] expression of type pointer-to-function. You cannot
apply the operator twice, because you cannot apply the unary & operator to
_any_ rvalue.
[1] value of object type that is not an lvalue
ah I see. Yes, I do agree with this.
Harald van D?k wrote:
vippstar wrote:
>pete <pfil...@mindspring.comwrote:
.... snip ...
>>
>>then (&&f)(0) would mean the same thing as (&f)(0), and it
doesn't. (&&f)(0) is undefined.
No, I'm correct. (&&f)(0) is a syntax error. && is the logical
operator, it has nothing to do with my claim that the effect of
'&' does not apply to function pointers.
pete surely meant (& &f)(0). He is correct that this is not
allowed in C, because &f does have an effect: it takes the
address of function f, and gives an rvalue[1] expression of type
pointer-to-function. You cannot apply the operator twice, because
you cannot apply the unary & operator to _any_ rvalue.
[1] value of object type that is not an lvalue
No, functions are peculiar things. If f(whatever) is a function,
the expression f means the address of the code of that function.
The expression &f says take the address, and means the same thing.
Similarly &&f, and &&&&&&&f.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:
[...]
No, functions are peculiar things. If f(whatever) is a function,
the expression f means the address of the code of that function.
The expression &f says take the address, and means the same thing.
So far, so good.
Similarly &&f, and &&&&&&&f.
You are mistaken on at least two counts.
First of all, &&f is tokenized as "&&" "f", so &&f is a syntax error.
vippstar mentioned this in text that you quoted (but apparently
neglected to read).
Second, &f is an expression of pointer-to-function type, but it's not
an lvalue, so & &f violates a constraint.
It's true that the following are all equivalent:
&f
f
*f
**f
***f
****f
etc.
because (a) "**" isn't a single token, and (b) the unary "*" operator
doesn't require an lvalue as its operand.
(I'm sure the trolls are chortling in their caves about one of the
"regulars" criticizing another. They are welcome, as always, to ...
never mind, this is a family newsgroup.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister" vi******@gmail.com wrote:
(&&f)(0) is a syntax error. && is the logical
operator, it has nothing to do with my claim that the effect of '&'
does not apply to function pointers.
This one has something to do with it:
(&(&f))(0)
See what your compiler says.
--
pete
Keith Thompson said:
<snip>
(I'm sure the trolls are chortling in their caves about one of the
"regulars" criticizing another. They are welcome, as always, to ...
never mind, this is a family newsgroup.)
The trolls are themselves regulars, and they criticise other regulars all
the time, if the replies I see are anything to go by.
But comp.lang.c isn't about constructing a nice little community - it's
about discussing C. When people get the C wrong, they should expect to be
corrected. When they get it wrong a lot, they should expect to be
criticised. When they get it wrong practically all the time, it is likely
that such criticism will be particularly heavy, sometimes taking shape as
mockery or scorn.
If people want to avoid criticism, the answer is not "become one of the
'clique'" because the 'clique' in comp.lang.c is a myth. Rather, the
answer is "get your C right".
A 'clique' is an inner circle to which admittance is restricted by
arbitrary and perhaps unwritten rules. If comp.lang.c has an inner circle,
it is composed of *all* those people who know the C language, i.e. C
experts - which means that clc's 'inner circle' has people in it who have
never posted so much as a single article. They may never even have heard
of clc. You don't need to be a regular clc contributor to be a C expert,
but you do need to be a C expert if you want comp.lang.c to treat you as
one.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Keith Thompson wrote:
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:
[...]
>No, functions are peculiar things. If f(whatever) is a function,
the expression f means the address of the code of that function.
The expression &f says take the address, and means the same thing.
So far, so good.
>Similarly &&f, and &&&&&&&f.
You are mistaken on at least two counts.
First of all, &&f is tokenized as "&&" "f", so &&f is a syntax
error. vippstar mentioned this in text that you quoted (but
apparently neglected to read).
Second, &f is an expression of pointer-to-function type, but it's
not an lvalue, so & &f violates a constraint.
It's true that the following are all equivalent:
&f
f
*f
**f
***f
****f
etc.
because (a) "**" isn't a single token, and (b) the unary "*"
operator doesn't require an lvalue as its operand.
(I'm sure the trolls are chortling in their caves about one of
the "regulars" criticizing another. They are welcome, as always,
to ... never mind, this is a family newsgroup.)
Ahh yes - you are right. I was thinking that the use of && for
logic required a phrase of the form <object && objectto be so
parsed. Thanks for the correction.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
In article <lz************@stalkings.ghoti.net>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
....
>(I'm sure the trolls are chortling in their caves about one of the
"regulars" criticizing another. They are welcome, as always, to ...
never mind, this is a family newsgroup.)
Would we do *that*? Au contraire...
What? Oh, OK. Yes, let me be the first to call it:
Chick fight!
On 2 Jul 2008 at 10:41, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <lz************@stalkings.ghoti.net>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
...
>>(I'm sure the trolls are chortling in their caves about one of the
"regulars" criticizing another. They are welcome, as always, to ...
never mind, this is a family newsgroup.)
Would we do *that*? Au contraire...
In this instance, we have a regular criticizing CBF. That's such a
depressingly routine occurrence by now that it's more likely to provoke
boredom than laughter. When you can be such a stubbornly wrong dickhead
that Harold van Dijk loses patience with you, it's really the end of the
road.
CBFalconer - 82 years old, and fingers crossed, any day now... This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: BigMan |
last post by:
Does the C++ standard define what should happen in case of NULL pointer
dereferencing. If not, does it say that it is illegal?
Where, if so, does it say it?
|
by: Shankar |
last post by:
Hello,
We have a smart pointer class which provides the dereference
operator -> to access the underlying object pointer. Now, we have a new
requirement where a different type of object (e.g from...
|
by: John Ratliff |
last post by:
When I dereference a pointer, does it make a copy of the object?
Say I had a singleton, and wanted an static method to retrieve it from
the class.
class foo {
private:
static foo *bar;
...
|
by: Pushkar Pradhan |
last post by:
I have some functions which take as i/p a buffer (it can be float, char,
or 16 bit, int etc.). The result is another o/p buffer, its type is also
flexible (it could be a float, char etc.).
I try...
|
by: Martin Jørgensen |
last post by:
Hi,
I have a "funny" question, which I think is pretty "healthy" to
examine... This program is being investigated:
- - - - - - -
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#define DAYS 7
|
by: Cyron |
last post by:
Hello friends,
Recently I have begun exploring the features that the STL map
collection provides. While learning how it worked, I encountered a
result that confused me. Up until now, I had...
|
by: Pritam |
last post by:
line 7: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
1. #include<stdio.h>
2. #include<sys/stat.h>
3. #include<stdlib.h>
4. void execname() {
5. struct task_struct *my;
6. my =...
|
by: David Mathog |
last post by:
We've established that a line of code like:
(void) function( (long *) &(something) );
may (and probably should) generate one of these
warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break...
|
by: prashant.khade1623 |
last post by:
I am not getting the exact idea.
Can you please explain me with an example.
Thanks
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
| |
