calling fuction with function pointer in C99
 

C99 says following are vallid function call with function pointer

1. (&f)();
2. f();
3 (*f)();
4. (**f)();
5. (***f)();
6. pf();
7. (*pf)();
8. (**pf)();
9. (***pf)();

here my question with respect to normal pointer.

in normal pointer *,**,& has different meaning but with function
pointer it look like those dont have any special meaning(all will do
the same operation).

Is *,** and & dont have any special meaning with function pointer ?
Why they are not making any difference in calling function ?

Thanks all for your comments

Re: calling fuction with function pointer in C99
 

Shivanand Kadwadkar <shivanand.kadwadkar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> in normal pointer *,**,& has different meaning but with function
> pointer it look like those dont have any special meaning(all will do
> the same operation).

Looks are deceiving. Those operators all have their normal meanings,
but the C language says that whenever an expression with a function type
is evaluated in a context that requires a value, the expression is
automatically converted into a pointer to the function. So, in an
expression like (***f)(), f has function type and is evaulated in
context that requires a value, so it is automatically converted into a
pointer to the function. The first * then turns it back into a
function, but it's again in a context that requires a value so it is
automatically converted back into a pointer again and so on for the rest
of the * operators.
--
Larry Jones

These findings suggest a logical course of action. -- Calvin

Re: calling fuction with function pointer in C99
 

"Shivanand Kadwadkar" <shivanand.kadwadkar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:72dee84d-c64d-4489-8c62-c09d5ab9c4a4@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> C99 says following are vallid function call with function pointer
>
> 1. (&f)();
> 2. f();
> 3 (*f)();
> 4. (**f)();
> 5. (***f)();
> 6. pf();
> 7. (*pf)();
> 8. (**pf)();
> 9. (***pf)();
>
> here my question with respect to normal pointer.
>
> in normal pointer *,**,& has different meaning but with function
> pointer it look like those dont have any special meaning(all will do
> the same operation).
>
> Is *,** and & dont have any special meaning with function pointer ?
> Why they are not making any difference in calling function ?

The '()' operator requires 'ptr to function' on it's left side. An ordinary
function name is converted by C into a 'ptr to function', by putting an
implied & in front of it, as in your example (2). (Which saves having to
stick & in front of 99% of C function calls.)

The other examples may or may not already be ptr to functions, ptr to ptr to
function, etc, as C is weird about not caring about extra "*" here:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

void testfn(int n){
printf("Testfn: %d\n",n);
}

int main(void){
void (*fn1)(int)=&testfn;
void (**fn2)(int)=&fn1;
void (***fn3)(int)=&fn2;

testfn(1);
(&testfn)(2);
(***testfn)(3);

(fn1)(10);
(******fn1)(11);

(*fn2)(20);
(*******************fn2)(21);

(**fn3)(30);
}

Look at the calls to testfn(), an ordinary function; I've put an extra "***"
there, and it doesn't mind.

fn1 is an actual ptr to function, so that's OK as it is (and again extra ***
can be put in).

fn2 is a ptr to ptr to function, and it needs at least one "*" to make it a
ptr to function.

While fn3 is a ptr to ptr to ptr to function, and needs at least two "*" to
turn it into ptr to ptr to function.

I've no idea why these extra "*" dereference ops are tolerated. It is just
misleading when looking at code.

--
Bartc