I am little confused with the applicability of reinterpret_cast
vs static_cast
. From what I have read the general rules are to use static cast when
The meaning of reinterpret_cast
is not defined by the C++ standard. Hence, in theory a reinterpret_cast
could crash your program. In practice compilers try to do what you expect, which is to interpret the bits of what you are passing in as if they were the type you are casting to. If you know what the compilers you are going to use do with reinterpret_cast
you can use it, but to say that it is portable would be lying.
For the case you describe, and pretty much any case where you might consider reinterpret_cast
, you can use static_cast
or some other alternative instead. Among other things the standard has this to say about what you can expect of static_cast
(§5.2.9):
An rvalue of type “pointer to cv void” can be explicitly converted to a pointer to object type. A value of type pointer to object converted to “pointer to cv void” and back to the original pointer type will have its original value.
So for your use case, it seems fairly clear that the standardization committee intended for you to use static_cast
.