On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 16:37 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
[....]
> Wow. I had to double-check this because I couldn't quite believe C++
> had that degree of dain bramage, but sure enough:
>
> /tmp$ cat test.c
> extern void *pv(void);
>
> int *pi(void)
> {
> return pv();
> }
> /tmp$ gcc -c test.c -o /dev/null
> /tmp$ g++ -c test.c -o /dev/null
> test.c: In function âint* pi()â:
> test.c:5: error: invalid conversion from âvoid*â to âint*â
> (1) /tmp$
Welcome to one of the (more obvious) differences between C and C++: you
can't assign/convert/promote a "void *" to any other pointer type (and
vice versa) without explicit type-cast.
For a library written in C, that is the point where "compile it also as
C++" ends IMHO. Just keep the 'extern "C" {' stuff in headers (under
'#ifdef __cplusplus') and compile it as C (and not C++).
BTW there are other similar issues if one digs deep enough.
BTDT (read: looked after a library which was used in 2 "applications" -
one in pure C, the other C++. No way without explicit type-casts which
look somewhat funny and are surely superfluous in C as such).
> I can understand C++ having stronger typechecking, but void pointers
> *exist* for this purpose. *Really* debatable whether Sparse should work
> around this. Avoiding keywords, sure, but casting void pointers
> everywhere? People *remove* these kinds of casts from C programs as a
> cleanup.
Type-casts are inherently evil. But in several situations there is in C
no other (or better) workaround. The above - kill warnings through "void
*" type-casts - makes it worse because some people (including /me) use
the type system in C and want the compiler to check as much as possible.
Bernd
--
mobile: +43 664 4416156 http://www.sysprog.at/
Linux Software Development, Consulting and Services
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
