[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts)
From: |
Robert Collins |
Subject: |
Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts) |
Date: |
08 Sep 2001 19:51:04 +1000 |
On Sat, 2001-09-08 at 13:31, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 02:45:11PM -0500, Tim Mooney wrote:
> Phew! Thanks for that info.
>
> I'm open to suggestions for a cleaner way to implement this, but I
> think that it is an unavoidable weakness in C that forces one to (ab)use
> void* in cases such as this.
I haven't checked the code in question, but if what youa re doing is
returning a pointer to a function froma function, then typdef'ing a
function pointer type and returning that should be a clean solution.
ie if the function type being passed around is
int func(char *, int)
typedef int functype(char *, int);
functype *
functionthatreturnspointertofunction()
{
...
}
Rob
- ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), libtool, 2001/09/05
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/06
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/06
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), libtool, 2001/09/06
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Tim Mooney, 2001/09/07
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/07
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts),
Robert Collins <=
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Bruce Korb, 2001/09/08
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/10
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Bruce Korb, 2001/09/10
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/10
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Tim Mooney, 2001/09/11
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Bruce Korb, 2001/09/12
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/13
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/13
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Tim Mooney, 2001/09/13
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Tim Mooney, 2001/09/13