Possibly confusing portability message on assignment

[Luc Matt]

I found a possible confusing message on portability, which after some tests I nailed down in this
example, with questionable source code:

File: try.c

#define  P1ADDR     0x10000

int     (*fn1)();
long    (*fn2)();
double  (*fn3)();

void  foo(void)
{
    fn1 = *(int    (*)())P1ADDR;
    fn2 = *(long   (*)())P2ADDR;
    fn3 = *(double (*)())P2ADDR;
}

Running cppcheck --enable=all . the result is as follows

Checking try.c ...
try.c:10:6: portability: Assigning an integer to a pointer is not portable. [AssignmentIntegerToAddress]
 fn1 = *(int    (*)())P1ADDR;
     ^
try.c:8:0: style: The function 'foo' is never used. [unusedFunction]

^

Note that the portability warning is issued only when I declare the pointer to a function returning an int,
which is possibly misunderstood just as an int (given that message). The other assignments show no
warning of any type, not even for style.
I'm running both cppcheck version 2.8 and 2.9, on Win11 pro, with the same result.

[CHR]

Thanks for reporting, ticket is here: https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/11522