What is the difference between a reinterpret_cast and a C-style cast?

Question

What is the difference between :

double x = 10.3;
int y;
y = (int) x;    // c-like cast notation

And :

double x = 10.3;
int y;
y = reinterpret_cast<int>(x)

For reference, the doc page: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/e0w9f63b.aspx. — , Apr 10 '14 at 21:42
Or check this answer: [Regular cast vs. static_cast vs. dynamic_cast](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28002/regular-cast-vs-static-cast-vs-dynamic-cast?rq=1) which also includes reinterpret_cast — jsantander, Apr 10 '14 at 21:50
To put it simply, C-style cast can do nearly everything. static_cast is limited to less dangerous forms of casting, so you are less likely to make a bad cast by accident. reinterpret_cast is most similar to C-style cast and shouldn't be used for number type conversion. — Neil Kirk, Apr 10 '14 at 21:59

Michael Burr · Answer 1 · 2014-04-10T21:55:21.820

A C-style cast can be any of the following types of casts:

the first one from that list that can be done is the what the C-style cast will perform (from C++03 5.4: "Explicit type conversion (cast notation)"

So for your example:

double x = 10.3;
int y;
y = (int) x;

the type of cast used would be a static_cast.

And y = reinterpret_cast<int>(x); won't compile.

1 Answers1