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
    4 hours ago











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

    – user4581301
    4 hours ago











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

    – Aconcagua
    4 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
    4 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
    4 hours ago











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

    – user4581301
    4 hours ago











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

    – Aconcagua
    4 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
    4 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 4 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
    4 hours ago











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

    – user4581301
    4 hours ago











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

    – Aconcagua
    4 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
    4 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
    4 hours ago











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

    – user4581301
    4 hours ago











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

    – Aconcagua
    4 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
    4 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
4 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
4 hours ago













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

– user4581301
4 hours ago





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

– user4581301
4 hours ago













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

– Aconcagua
4 hours ago





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

– Aconcagua
4 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
4 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
4 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
    4 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
    3 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
    3 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
    4 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
    3 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
    3 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
    4 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
    3 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
    3 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 2 hours ago

























answered 4 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
    4 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
    3 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
    3 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
    4 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
    3 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
    3 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
4 hours ago





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

– Ben Voigt
4 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
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
3 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
3 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
3 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

flock() on closed filehandle LOCK_FILE at /usr/bin/apt-mirror

Image
0 I recently upgraded an Ubuntu 16.04 virtual machine to 18.04. I regularly use this VM to run apt-mirror at school on their high-speed internet, then rsync these files to my rack-mount server at home for updating multiple computers at home without wasting the tiny amount of bandwidth I have there. Since updating I can't get apt-mirror to run on my VM. It keeps giving the error: flock() on closed filehandle LOCK_FILE at /usr/bin/apt-mirror line 214 immediately followed by: apt-mirror is already running, exiting at /usr/bin/apt-mirror line 217 apt-mirror is NOT running, and does not have a cron job. I've tried rebooting, and even looked for the old-style lockfile to delete, but I guess that method is no longer used. Is there some way to force unlock this so I can run apt-mirror? UPDATE: So... I f...
Read more

Mangá

Image
  Nota:  Não confundir com Manga. Mangás e Animes Mangá Mangaká • Tankōbon Film comic La nouvelle manga Mangá original em inglês Anime História Animação influenciada por animes • Filler • OVA • Seiyū Públicos Kodomo • Shōjo • Shōnen Josei • Seinen Gêneros Mahō shōjo • Mecha • Harém Ecchi • Hentai ( Yaoi • Yuri Futanari • Shotacon • Lolicon Toddlercon ) Termos Bishōjo • Chibi • Fan service Gaiden • Kawaii • Kaitō • Light novel Mahō shōnen • Moe (antropomorfismo • Kemonomimi Nekomimi ) • Super deformed Omake • Tsundere • Yonkoma Listas Mangás • Animes • Ecchi • Mangaka • Estúdios • Revistas Fãs ( otaku ) Anime Music Video Convenções • Cosplay Dōjinshi • Fansub • Fandub • Fujoshi OS-tan • Scanlation Portal de Anime e mangá v d e O mangá (português brasileiro) ou manga (português europeu) [ 1 ] (em japonês: 漫画 , manga ? , lit. “história em quadrinhos”) , é a ...
Read more

Eduardo VII do Reino Unido

Image
Eduardo VII Rei do Reino Unido da Grã-Bretanha e Irlanda e dos Domínios Britânicos de Além-mar Imperador da Índia Rei do Reino Unido e Imperador da Índia Reinado 22 de janeiro de 1901 a 6 de maio de 1910 Coroação 9 de agosto de 1902 Delhi Durbar 1 de janeiro de 1903 Predecessora Vitória Sucessor Jorge V   Esposa Alexandra da Dinamarca Descendência Alberto Vitor, Duque de Clarence e Avondale Jorge V do Reino Unido Luísa, Princesa Real Vitória de Gales Maud de Gales Alexandre João de Gales Casa Saxe-Coburgo-Gota Nome completo Alberto Eduardo Nascimento 9 de novembro de 1841   Palácio de Buckingham, Londres, Reino Unido Morte 6 de maio de 1910 (68 anos)   Palácio de Buckingham, Londres, Reino Unido Enterro Capela de São Jorge, Windsor, Berkshire, Reino Unido 20 de maio de 1910 Pai Alberto de Saxe-Coburgo-Gota Mãe Vitória do Reino Unido Assinatura ...
Read more