Aaron Rocha wrote: >> I am one. > > Sweet! Then I got to the right person :) > >> 6.7.3 Para 8: "If the specification of an array type includes any >> type qualifiers, the element type is so qualified, not the array >> type. For two qualified types to be compatible, both shall have >> the identically qualified version of a compatible type." > > Thanks for the clarification, Andrew. This is all I needed to know. > > Apparently, the standard is slightly different for C++ because I don't > get a warning in the same situation. This is the clarification I was > seeking regarding the C standard. C++ uses very different language when talking about this: 3.9.2 Compound types Pointers to cv-qualified and cv-unqualified versions (3.9.3) of layout-compatible types shall have the same value representation and alignment requirements (3.9). 3.9.3 CV-qualifiers The cv-qualified or cv-unqualified versions of a type are distinct types; however, they shall have the same representation and alignment requirements 46) 46) The same representation and alignment requirements are meant to imply interchangeability as arguments to functions, return values from functions, and members of unions. By which I understand that the same rules as C apply. I think. It's hard to tell... :-) Andrew.
