void*

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <43.UUL1.3#5077 at aussie.UUCP> rex at aussie.UUCP (Rex Jaeschke) writes:
>Certainly void * and char * are required to have identical 
>representation. However, the two types are different types. Should a 
>REAL ANSI C compiler complain or not?

Yes, I think a diagnostic is required.  That's why the implementation of
memchr() along the lines I suggested should not include the standard
header.  Indeed, I wouldn't include the relevant header in most
implementations of standard library functions, since it usually isn't
either necessary or useful to do so.