• "Dario" <supdar yahoo.com> Jul 24 2002
• "anderson" <anderson firestar.com.au> Jul 24 2002
• Pavel Minayev <evilone omen.ru> Jul 24 2002

"Dario" <supdar yahoo.com> writes:

int main()
{
    static void (*fp)() = &func;
    fp();
    return 0;
}
void func() {}

This will crash the compiler (v. 0.35).
Is this a known bug? Isn't this code correct?

"anderson" <anderson firestar.com.au> writes:

Defiantly a complier bug. I tested the same code. Anyhow, is static talking
about the function pointer or the type of function (ie static function)?

"Dario" <supdar yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ahls95$29b1$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 int main()
 {
     static void (*fp)() = &func;
     fp();
     return 0;
 }
 void func() {}

 This will crash the compiler (v. 0.35).
 Is this a known bug? Isn't this code correct?

Pavel Minayev <evilone omen.ru> writes:

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:41:05 +0200 "Dario" <supdar yahoo.com> wrote:

 int main()
 {
     static void (*fp)() = &func;
     fp();
     return 0;
 }
 void func() {}
 
 This will crash the compiler (v. 0.35).
 Is this a known bug? Isn't this code correct?


It is definitely a bug, and it is even worse: the compiler crashes
every time a function pointer is found where a constant expression
is expected - which includes initializers for global and static
variables.