Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4F441792.4070906@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:15:46 -0600
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120208 Thunderbird/10.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Eliminate warnings with C89 compilers
References: <20120221095608.GA25569@daniel3.local>
 <4F4375A6.7020404@rowe-clan.net>
 <CAN9c_NQhh4GDvC253-eA3jb6Ks1PmyB8-AVgtrjS0j5Osp5fRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <201202212253.45218.sf@sfritsch.de> <20120221220315.GA12864@daniel3.local>
In-Reply-To: <20120221220315.GA12864@daniel3.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2/21/2012 4:03 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Fritsch wrote on Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 22:53:44 +0100:
>> On Tuesday 21 February 2012, Michael Felt wrote:
>>> FYI - I see no notable difference in the W messages with the IBM
>>> vacpp (xlc) v7 compiler using no CFLAGS and CFLAGS='-O2
>>> -qlanglvl=extc99'
>>
>> Hrm. Assigning function pointers to void * is not really portable. Not 
>> sure about the best way to fix this, yet, while keeping the code 
>> readable.
>>
> 
> I think the issue is a constness mismatch?

No... a function pointer isn't a data pointers (and there are several
architectures which reflect this).  It's also a potential source of
security weaknesses.  Is the function prototype variable?

Or cast it through a typedef void (void_fn*)(void); void_fn fnp; variable,
which at least retains the 'functionness' of the pointer.