A NOTE has been added to this issue. ====================================================================== https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1644 ====================================================================== Reported By: bastien Assigned To: ====================================================================== Project: 1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1644 Category: System Interfaces Type: Enhancement Request Severity: Comment Priority: normal Status: New Name: Bastien Roucaries Organization: debian User Reference: Section: dlsym - get the address of a symbol from a symbol table handle Page Number: Application usage Line Number: all Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2023-03-22 09:52 UTC Last Modified: 2023-03-23 14:45 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: void * to function pointer is described in annex J of C standard (informative). ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0006234) wlerch (reporter) - 2023-03-23 14:45 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1644#c6234 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > In my mind I was replying in the context of the named symbol being a function, but I neglected to state that condition. But my point is that the text in the standard does not state that condition either. Yes, trying to do the conversion without a cast would <i>sometimes</i> cause C compilers to produce a diagnostic, but other times it would not, so that does not sound like a good reason to have a wording that can be interpreted as implying that a cast is <i>always</i> required. > > I suspect the real reason it says "cast" is because a lot of people refer to any conversion as a "cast" and a cast as an "explicit cast". > If that were the reason, I would expect the related text in RETURN VALUE to say "cast" as well. The text that says "cast" was added after the text in RETURN VALUE was already there, wasn't it? It wouldn't make a lot of sense to adjust the existing text that was already using the more accurate "conversion" to use the less accurate "cast" instead, just because new text using "cast" was being added. I think would have been better to adjust the new text to use the more accurate "conversion" and be more consistent with the existing text, but if it was done by someone who thought of "cast" as a synonym for "conversion", I can understand why they would not have bothered. Anyway, investigating the reasons and motives behind the existing text is probably not quite as important as figuring out whether the existing text is sufficient or deserves some changes, is it?... Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2023-03-22 09:52 bastien New Issue 2023-03-22 09:52 bastien Name => Bastien Roucaries 2023-03-22 09:52 bastien Organization => debian 2023-03-22 09:52 bastien Section => dlsym - get the address of a symbol from a symbol table handle 2023-03-22 09:52 bastien Page Number => Application usage 2023-03-22 09:52 bastien Line Number => all 2023-03-22 13:24 wlerch Note Added: 0006220 2023-03-22 15:15 bastien Note Added: 0006222 2023-03-22 15:43 wlerch Note Added: 0006223 2023-03-22 16:10 bastien Note Added: 0006224 2023-03-22 18:43 wlerch Note Added: 0006225 2023-03-23 09:39 geoffclare Note Added: 0006229 2023-03-23 13:47 wlerch Note Added: 0006232 2023-03-23 13:52 wlerch Note Edited: 0006232 2023-03-23 14:02 geoffclare Note Added: 0006233 2023-03-23 14:45 wlerch Note Added: 0006234 ======================================================================
