Why do compilers behave differently when static_cast(ing) a function to void*?












8















The following code compiles without any error in VSC++2017 and doesn't compile in gcc 7.3.0 (error: invalid static_cast from type ‘int(int)’ to type ‘void*’
void* p = static_cast<void*>(func))



#include <iostream>



int func(int x) { return 2 * x; }



int main() {



    void* p = static_cast<void*>(func);

    return 0;

}





c++ function-pointers void-pointers static-cast







share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Function pointers are a bit weird. I'd have to go Standard diving, but I'm pretty sure MSVC is bending the Standard for their own nefarious purposes.

    – user4581301
    3 hours ago











  • Potential Dupe: stackoverflow.com/questions/36645660/…

    – user4581301
    3 hours ago











  • @user4581301 Not really – the other question is about C, and there might be differences in the languages...

    – Aconcagua
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    While function pointers are different animals than object pointers, most incompatibilities occur when the sizeof() the two differ. If they are the same you can usually safely convert back and forth to a void*. Even so, while it may work, it's not portable and just one of those things best avoided.

    – doug
    3 hours ago
















8















The following code compiles without any error in VSC++2017 and doesn't compile in gcc 7.3.0 (error: invalid static_cast from type ‘int(int)’ to type ‘void*’
void* p = static_cast<void*>(func))



#include <iostream>



int func(int x) { return 2 * x; }



int main() {



    void* p = static_cast<void*>(func);

    return 0;

}





c++ function-pointers void-pointers static-cast







share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Function pointers are a bit weird. I'd have to go Standard diving, but I'm pretty sure MSVC is bending the Standard for their own nefarious purposes.

    – user4581301
    3 hours ago











  • Potential Dupe: stackoverflow.com/questions/36645660/…

    – user4581301
    3 hours ago











  • @user4581301 Not really – the other question is about C, and there might be differences in the languages...

    – Aconcagua
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    While function pointers are different animals than object pointers, most incompatibilities occur when the sizeof() the two differ. If they are the same you can usually safely convert back and forth to a void*. Even so, while it may work, it's not portable and just one of those things best avoided.

    – doug
    3 hours ago














8












8








8








The following code compiles without any error in VSC++2017 and doesn't compile in gcc 7.3.0 (error: invalid static_cast from type ‘int(int)’ to type ‘void*’
void* p = static_cast<void*>(func))



#include <iostream>



int func(int x) { return 2 * x; }



int main() {



    void* p = static_cast<void*>(func);

    return 0;

}





c++ function-pointers void-pointers static-cast







share|improve this question
















The following code compiles without any error in VSC++2017 and doesn't compile in gcc 7.3.0 (error: invalid static_cast from type ‘int(int)’ to type ‘void*’
void* p = static_cast<void*>(func))



#include <iostream>



int func(int x) { return 2 * x; }



int main() {



    void* p = static_cast<void*>(func);

    return 0;

}





c++ function-pointers void-pointers static-cast




c++ function-pointers void-pointers static-cast






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago









Fabio Turati

2,63452341




2,63452341










asked 4 hours ago









Soulimane MammarSoulimane Mammar

521413




521413








  • 1





    Function pointers are a bit weird. I'd have to go Standard diving, but I'm pretty sure MSVC is bending the Standard for their own nefarious purposes.

    – user4581301
    3 hours ago











  • Potential Dupe: stackoverflow.com/questions/36645660/…

    – user4581301
    3 hours ago











  • @user4581301 Not really – the other question is about C, and there might be differences in the languages...

    – Aconcagua
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    While function pointers are different animals than object pointers, most incompatibilities occur when the sizeof() the two differ. If they are the same you can usually safely convert back and forth to a void*. Even so, while it may work, it's not portable and just one of those things best avoided.

    – doug
    3 hours ago














  • 1





    Function pointers are a bit weird. I'd have to go Standard diving, but I'm pretty sure MSVC is bending the Standard for their own nefarious purposes.

    – user4581301
    3 hours ago











  • Potential Dupe: stackoverflow.com/questions/36645660/…

    – user4581301
    3 hours ago











  • @user4581301 Not really – the other question is about C, and there might be differences in the languages...

    – Aconcagua
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    While function pointers are different animals than object pointers, most incompatibilities occur when the sizeof() the two differ. If they are the same you can usually safely convert back and forth to a void*. Even so, while it may work, it's not portable and just one of those things best avoided.

    – doug
    3 hours ago








1




1





Function pointers are a bit weird. I'd have to go Standard diving, but I'm pretty sure MSVC is bending the Standard for their own nefarious purposes.

– user4581301
3 hours ago





Function pointers are a bit weird. I'd have to go Standard diving, but I'm pretty sure MSVC is bending the Standard for their own nefarious purposes.

– user4581301
3 hours ago













Potential Dupe: stackoverflow.com/questions/36645660/…

– user4581301
3 hours ago





Potential Dupe: stackoverflow.com/questions/36645660/…

– user4581301
3 hours ago













@user4581301 Not really – the other question is about C, and there might be differences in the languages...

– Aconcagua
3 hours ago





@user4581301 Not really – the other question is about C, and there might be differences in the languages...

– Aconcagua
3 hours ago




1




1





While function pointers are different animals than object pointers, most incompatibilities occur when the sizeof() the two differ. If they are the same you can usually safely convert back and forth to a void*. Even so, while it may work, it's not portable and just one of those things best avoided.

– doug
3 hours ago





While function pointers are different animals than object pointers, most incompatibilities occur when the sizeof() the two differ. If they are the same you can usually safely convert back and forth to a void*. Even so, while it may work, it's not portable and just one of those things best avoided.

– doug
3 hours ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5














Functions are implicitly convertible only to function pointers. A function pointer is not a pointer in the strict meaning of the word in the language, which refers only to pointers to objects.



Function pointers cannot be converted to void* using static_cast. The shown program is ill-formed. If a compiler does not warn, then it fails to conform to the standard. Failing to compile an ill-formed program does not violate the standard.




On systems where void* is guaranteed to be able to point to a function (such as POSIX), you can use reinterpret_cast instead:



void* p = reinterpret_cast<void*>(func);


But this is not portable to systems that lack the guarantee. (I know of no system that has a C++ compiler and does not have this guarantee, but that does not mean such system does not exist).



Standard quote:




[expr.reinterpret.cast]



Converting a function pointer to an object pointer type or vice versa is conditionally-supported. The meaning
of such a conversion is implementation-defined, except that if an implementation supports conversions in both
directions, converting a prvalue of one type to the other type and back, possibly with different cv-qualification,
shall yield the original pointer value.




Note that this conditional support does not extend to pointers to member functions. Pointers to member functions are not function pointers.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    POSIX requires interconvertibility between function pointers (code addresses) and object pointers (data addresses), it's necessary to make dlsym work.

    – Ben Voigt
    3 hours ago











  • @BenVoigt - that's true, but it won't be done with static_cast. It can be done with reinterpret_cast or a C-style cast.

    – Peter
    2 hours ago











  • On this answer - the standard says nothing about "warnings". The standard requires diagnostics if a program is ill-formed and the error message in the question represents a diagnostic. But the standard neither requires nor forbids warnings (messages about suspicious constructs, etc, that do not prevent code from compiling) - they are discretionary features offered by implementations (and often an indicator of "quality of implementation"). Their absence does not indicate non-compliance with the standard.

    – Peter
    2 hours ago











  • @Peter the standard requires a diagnostic if the program is ill-formed (unless specified otherwise). The shown program is ill-formed. A diagnostic is required. A warning is a form of a diagnostic, and issuing a warning would be sufficient to conform to the standard. Lack of a diagnostic is violation of the standard.

    – eerorika
    2 hours ago













Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55319602%2fwhy-do-compilers-behave-differently-when-static-casting-a-function-to-void%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5














Functions are implicitly convertible only to function pointers. A function pointer is not a pointer in the strict meaning of the word in the language, which refers only to pointers to objects.



Function pointers cannot be converted to void* using static_cast. The shown program is ill-formed. If a compiler does not warn, then it fails to conform to the standard. Failing to compile an ill-formed program does not violate the standard.




On systems where void* is guaranteed to be able to point to a function (such as POSIX), you can use reinterpret_cast instead:



void* p = reinterpret_cast<void*>(func);


But this is not portable to systems that lack the guarantee. (I know of no system that has a C++ compiler and does not have this guarantee, but that does not mean such system does not exist).



Standard quote:




[expr.reinterpret.cast]



Converting a function pointer to an object pointer type or vice versa is conditionally-supported. The meaning
of such a conversion is implementation-defined, except that if an implementation supports conversions in both
directions, converting a prvalue of one type to the other type and back, possibly with different cv-qualification,
shall yield the original pointer value.




Note that this conditional support does not extend to pointers to member functions. Pointers to member functions are not function pointers.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    POSIX requires interconvertibility between function pointers (code addresses) and object pointers (data addresses), it's necessary to make dlsym work.

    – Ben Voigt
    3 hours ago











  • @BenVoigt - that's true, but it won't be done with static_cast. It can be done with reinterpret_cast or a C-style cast.

    – Peter
    2 hours ago











  • On this answer - the standard says nothing about "warnings". The standard requires diagnostics if a program is ill-formed and the error message in the question represents a diagnostic. But the standard neither requires nor forbids warnings (messages about suspicious constructs, etc, that do not prevent code from compiling) - they are discretionary features offered by implementations (and often an indicator of "quality of implementation"). Their absence does not indicate non-compliance with the standard.

    – Peter
    2 hours ago











  • @Peter the standard requires a diagnostic if the program is ill-formed (unless specified otherwise). The shown program is ill-formed. A diagnostic is required. A warning is a form of a diagnostic, and issuing a warning would be sufficient to conform to the standard. Lack of a diagnostic is violation of the standard.

    – eerorika
    2 hours ago


















5














Functions are implicitly convertible only to function pointers. A function pointer is not a pointer in the strict meaning of the word in the language, which refers only to pointers to objects.



Function pointers cannot be converted to void* using static_cast. The shown program is ill-formed. If a compiler does not warn, then it fails to conform to the standard. Failing to compile an ill-formed program does not violate the standard.




On systems where void* is guaranteed to be able to point to a function (such as POSIX), you can use reinterpret_cast instead:



void* p = reinterpret_cast<void*>(func);


But this is not portable to systems that lack the guarantee. (I know of no system that has a C++ compiler and does not have this guarantee, but that does not mean such system does not exist).



Standard quote:




[expr.reinterpret.cast]



Converting a function pointer to an object pointer type or vice versa is conditionally-supported. The meaning
of such a conversion is implementation-defined, except that if an implementation supports conversions in both
directions, converting a prvalue of one type to the other type and back, possibly with different cv-qualification,
shall yield the original pointer value.




Note that this conditional support does not extend to pointers to member functions. Pointers to member functions are not function pointers.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    POSIX requires interconvertibility between function pointers (code addresses) and object pointers (data addresses), it's necessary to make dlsym work.

    – Ben Voigt
    3 hours ago











  • @BenVoigt - that's true, but it won't be done with static_cast. It can be done with reinterpret_cast or a C-style cast.

    – Peter
    2 hours ago











  • On this answer - the standard says nothing about "warnings". The standard requires diagnostics if a program is ill-formed and the error message in the question represents a diagnostic. But the standard neither requires nor forbids warnings (messages about suspicious constructs, etc, that do not prevent code from compiling) - they are discretionary features offered by implementations (and often an indicator of "quality of implementation"). Their absence does not indicate non-compliance with the standard.

    – Peter
    2 hours ago











  • @Peter the standard requires a diagnostic if the program is ill-formed (unless specified otherwise). The shown program is ill-formed. A diagnostic is required. A warning is a form of a diagnostic, and issuing a warning would be sufficient to conform to the standard. Lack of a diagnostic is violation of the standard.

    – eerorika
    2 hours ago
















5












5








5







Functions are implicitly convertible only to function pointers. A function pointer is not a pointer in the strict meaning of the word in the language, which refers only to pointers to objects.



Function pointers cannot be converted to void* using static_cast. The shown program is ill-formed. If a compiler does not warn, then it fails to conform to the standard. Failing to compile an ill-formed program does not violate the standard.




On systems where void* is guaranteed to be able to point to a function (such as POSIX), you can use reinterpret_cast instead:



void* p = reinterpret_cast<void*>(func);


But this is not portable to systems that lack the guarantee. (I know of no system that has a C++ compiler and does not have this guarantee, but that does not mean such system does not exist).



Standard quote:




[expr.reinterpret.cast]



Converting a function pointer to an object pointer type or vice versa is conditionally-supported. The meaning
of such a conversion is implementation-defined, except that if an implementation supports conversions in both
directions, converting a prvalue of one type to the other type and back, possibly with different cv-qualification,
shall yield the original pointer value.




Note that this conditional support does not extend to pointers to member functions. Pointers to member functions are not function pointers.






share|improve this answer















Functions are implicitly convertible only to function pointers. A function pointer is not a pointer in the strict meaning of the word in the language, which refers only to pointers to objects.



Function pointers cannot be converted to void* using static_cast. The shown program is ill-formed. If a compiler does not warn, then it fails to conform to the standard. Failing to compile an ill-formed program does not violate the standard.




On systems where void* is guaranteed to be able to point to a function (such as POSIX), you can use reinterpret_cast instead:



void* p = reinterpret_cast<void*>(func);


But this is not portable to systems that lack the guarantee. (I know of no system that has a C++ compiler and does not have this guarantee, but that does not mean such system does not exist).



Standard quote:




[expr.reinterpret.cast]



Converting a function pointer to an object pointer type or vice versa is conditionally-supported. The meaning
of such a conversion is implementation-defined, except that if an implementation supports conversions in both
directions, converting a prvalue of one type to the other type and back, possibly with different cv-qualification,
shall yield the original pointer value.




Note that this conditional support does not extend to pointers to member functions. Pointers to member functions are not function pointers.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 1 hour ago

























answered 3 hours ago









eerorikaeerorika

87.2k663134




87.2k663134








  • 1





    POSIX requires interconvertibility between function pointers (code addresses) and object pointers (data addresses), it's necessary to make dlsym work.

    – Ben Voigt
    3 hours ago











  • @BenVoigt - that's true, but it won't be done with static_cast. It can be done with reinterpret_cast or a C-style cast.

    – Peter
    2 hours ago











  • On this answer - the standard says nothing about "warnings". The standard requires diagnostics if a program is ill-formed and the error message in the question represents a diagnostic. But the standard neither requires nor forbids warnings (messages about suspicious constructs, etc, that do not prevent code from compiling) - they are discretionary features offered by implementations (and often an indicator of "quality of implementation"). Their absence does not indicate non-compliance with the standard.

    – Peter
    2 hours ago











  • @Peter the standard requires a diagnostic if the program is ill-formed (unless specified otherwise). The shown program is ill-formed. A diagnostic is required. A warning is a form of a diagnostic, and issuing a warning would be sufficient to conform to the standard. Lack of a diagnostic is violation of the standard.

    – eerorika
    2 hours ago
















  • 1





    POSIX requires interconvertibility between function pointers (code addresses) and object pointers (data addresses), it's necessary to make dlsym work.

    – Ben Voigt
    3 hours ago











  • @BenVoigt - that's true, but it won't be done with static_cast. It can be done with reinterpret_cast or a C-style cast.

    – Peter
    2 hours ago











  • On this answer - the standard says nothing about "warnings". The standard requires diagnostics if a program is ill-formed and the error message in the question represents a diagnostic. But the standard neither requires nor forbids warnings (messages about suspicious constructs, etc, that do not prevent code from compiling) - they are discretionary features offered by implementations (and often an indicator of "quality of implementation"). Their absence does not indicate non-compliance with the standard.

    – Peter
    2 hours ago











  • @Peter the standard requires a diagnostic if the program is ill-formed (unless specified otherwise). The shown program is ill-formed. A diagnostic is required. A warning is a form of a diagnostic, and issuing a warning would be sufficient to conform to the standard. Lack of a diagnostic is violation of the standard.

    – eerorika
    2 hours ago










1




1





POSIX requires interconvertibility between function pointers (code addresses) and object pointers (data addresses), it's necessary to make dlsym work.

– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago





POSIX requires interconvertibility between function pointers (code addresses) and object pointers (data addresses), it's necessary to make dlsym work.

– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago













@BenVoigt - that's true, but it won't be done with static_cast. It can be done with reinterpret_cast or a C-style cast.

– Peter
2 hours ago





@BenVoigt - that's true, but it won't be done with static_cast. It can be done with reinterpret_cast or a C-style cast.

– Peter
2 hours ago













On this answer - the standard says nothing about "warnings". The standard requires diagnostics if a program is ill-formed and the error message in the question represents a diagnostic. But the standard neither requires nor forbids warnings (messages about suspicious constructs, etc, that do not prevent code from compiling) - they are discretionary features offered by implementations (and often an indicator of "quality of implementation"). Their absence does not indicate non-compliance with the standard.

– Peter
2 hours ago





On this answer - the standard says nothing about "warnings". The standard requires diagnostics if a program is ill-formed and the error message in the question represents a diagnostic. But the standard neither requires nor forbids warnings (messages about suspicious constructs, etc, that do not prevent code from compiling) - they are discretionary features offered by implementations (and often an indicator of "quality of implementation"). Their absence does not indicate non-compliance with the standard.

– Peter
2 hours ago













@Peter the standard requires a diagnostic if the program is ill-formed (unless specified otherwise). The shown program is ill-formed. A diagnostic is required. A warning is a form of a diagnostic, and issuing a warning would be sufficient to conform to the standard. Lack of a diagnostic is violation of the standard.

– eerorika
2 hours ago







@Peter the standard requires a diagnostic if the program is ill-formed (unless specified otherwise). The shown program is ill-formed. A diagnostic is required. A warning is a form of a diagnostic, and issuing a warning would be sufficient to conform to the standard. Lack of a diagnostic is violation of the standard.

– eerorika
2 hours ago






















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55319602%2fwhy-do-compilers-behave-differently-when-static-casting-a-function-to-void%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

How to label and detect the document text images

Image
1 $begingroup$ This is what I mean as document text image: I want to label the texts in image as separate blocks and my model should detect these labels as classes. NOTE: This is how the end result should be like: The labels like Block 1, Block 2, Block 3,.. should be Logo, Title, Date,.. Others, etc. Work done: First approach : I tried to implement this method via Object Detection, it didn't work. It didn't even detect any text. Second approach : Then I tried it using PixelLink. As this model is build for scene text detection, it detected each and every text in the image. But this method can detect multiple lines of text if the threshold values are increased. But I have no idea how do I add labels to the text blocks. PIXEL_CLS_WEIGHT_all_ones = 'PIXEL_CLS_WEIGHT_all_ones' PIXEL_C...
Read more

Vallis Paradisi

Image
Coordinata: .mw-parser-output .geo-default,.mw-parser-output .geo-dms,.mw-parser-output .geo-dec{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .geo-nondefault,.mw-parser-output .geo-multi-punct{display:none}.mw-parser-output .longitude,.mw-parser-output .latitude{white-space:nowrap} 33°03′S 71°37′W  /  33.05°S 71.617°W  / -33.05; -71.617 Vallis Paradisi Res apud Vicidata repertae: Civitas : Chilia Numerus incolarum : 296 655 Zona horaria : UTC-4 Situs interretialis Nomen officiale : Valparaíso Gubernium Consilium : municipal council of Valparaíso Geographia Superficies : 401 600 000 Metrum quadratum Coniunctiones urbium Urbes gemellae : Ovetum , Badalona , Santa Fe , Ora longa , Sciamhaevum , Quantunia , Callao , Bat Yam , Melaka , Novorossiysk , Busan , Corduba , Odessa , Rosario , Malacca , Barcino , Soteropolis , Franciscopolis (California) , Guanajuato, Silao Tabula aut despectus Despectus in portum sinumque et urbem Vallis Paradisi Vallis Para...
Read more

Tabula Rosettana

Image
Tabula multilinguis Rosettana in Museo Britannico ostenditur. Tabula Rosettana, [1] etiam titulo OGIS 90 agnita, est stela decreto de rebus sacris in Aegypto anno 196 a.C.n. lato inscripta. Tabula iuxta Rosettam Aegypti, urbem in delta Nili et ad oram maris Mediterranei iacentem, anno 1799 a milite Francico reperta est. Inventio stelae, linguis duabus scripturisque tribus inscriptae, eruditis Instituti Aegypti statim nuntiata est; ibi enim iussu imperatoris Napoleonis eruditi omnium scientiarum (sub aegide Commissionis Scientiarum et Artium) properaverant cum expeditione Francica. Qua a Britannis mox debellata, tabula Rosettana Londinium missa hodie apud Museum Britannicum iacet. Textus Graecus cito lectus interpretationi textuum Aegyptiorum (in formis hieroglyphica et demotica expressorum) gradatim adiuvit. Denique textum plene interpretatus est Ioannes Franciscus Champollion. Ab opere eruditorum cumulativo coepit hodiernus scripturae hieroglyphicae linguaeque Aegyptiae a...
Read more