public inbox for cygwin@cygwin.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: L A Walsh <cygwin@tlinx.org>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: free() and implicit conversion to a function pointer
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 21:46:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <58CB07A8.9010401@tlinx.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f76885f4-f99f-dc50-2a19-cb892a62db7e@t-online.de>

Going by subj and talk below, this is a bit confusing...

But it looks like you are testing 'free' for a value?

Isn't standard 'free' declared to take 1 arg and
return void?

If you aren't talking standard 'free()', then
nevermind...


Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
> [Sorry, forgot to reply-all...]
>
> Am 15.03.2017 um 23:48 schrieb Jeffrey Walton:
>
>> Since Coverity is
>> complaining about an implicit conversion, maybe the following will
>> help to avoid the implicit part (and sidestep the finding):
>>
>>     if (free != NULL)
>>         break;
>>
>> Or perhaps:
>>
>>     if ((void*)free != NULL)
>>         break;
>
> Even setting aside that the latter should of course have been
>
>      if ((void*)free == NULL)
>          break;
>
> those are both worse than the original code.  (void *) is _not_ 
> suitable for use with function pointers.  Neither is NULL in the 
> general case, because it may very well be ((void *)0).
>
> The reason this is wrong is that C by design treats data and functions 
> as living in separate realms, i.e. its virtual machine has a Harvard 
> architecture.  One of the consequences of this is that pointers to 
> functions and pointers to data are incommensurable, i.e. any and all 
> conversions or comparisons across this divide are wrong.  (void *) are 
> compatible to all data pointers, but not to function pointers.
>
> The only code that might actually be a slight bit better than the given
>
>     if (! free)
>
> would be
>
>     if (0 != free)
>
> The function designator `free' auto-decays into a function pointer, 
> which is compared to a null pointer constant: 0.  The ! operator does 
> that same thing implicitly, but is fully equivalent to it.
---
Free autodecays to a function pointer?
In what language?

It's not a C-function nor a C function pointer.



--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-16 21:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <c5af0608-17c4-2270-dbba-c3b704c9226e@t-online.de>
2017-03-16 19:25 ` free() and implicit conversion to a function pointer (was: Use of initialized variable in strtod.c) Hans-Bernhard Bröker
2017-03-16 21:46   ` L A Walsh [this message]
2017-03-16 23:49     ` free() and implicit conversion to a function pointer Hans-Bernhard Bröker
2017-03-17  8:30       ` Corinna Vinschen
2017-03-17 21:01         ` Hans-Bernhard Bröker
2017-03-20 18:43   ` Eric Blake

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=58CB07A8.9010401@tlinx.org \
    --to=cygwin@tlinx.org \
    --cc=cygwin@cygwin.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).