On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Martin Sebor wrote: > Yes. In light of this discussion I am thinking it might be > worthwhile to bring up the issue of generic function pointers > with WG14 for C2X.
I'm fine with the idea of having a standard solution that (unlike void (*) (void)) cannot be called at all without converting to another type. I just maintain that void (*) (void) is the de facto idiom for this and so the warning should reflect this even in the future presence of such a standard solution (much as we e.g. handle trailing [1] arrays in structs as possibly being used as flexible array members in code using that as a C89/C++-compatible idiom rather than relying on C99 flexible array members). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com