Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:12:12 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Cc: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Roudier?= <groudier@club-internet.fr>, Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/isp isp.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101041707400.14622-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20010103231258.F6550@hand.dotat.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Tony Finch wrote:
> Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> wrote:
> >
> >Actually, literal strings are arrays of plain chars.
>
> Gah!
>
> >Their non-modifyability is specified explicitly since it doesn't
> >follow from const'ness.
>
> Why doesn't it follow? The C standard uses pretty much the same
> language to say that string literals and const objects shouldn't be
> modified ("behaviour is undefined"). [I'm looking at the C99 draft.]
Because plain chars aren't const. If they were then the standard
wouldn't have to repeat these words for string literals.
> >Enforcement of const'ness is also optional. The non-const'ness of the
> >chars in literal strings gives implementors even more freedom. E.g.:
> >
> >---
> >void foo(char *);
> >char *bar;
> >...
> > foo(bar); /* Diagnostic required. */
> > foo("string literal"); /* Diagnostic not required. */
> >---
>
> Was there supposed to be a const in there somewhere?
Oops, `bar' should have been `const char *'.
> >Use `gcc -Wwrite-strings' if you don't want warnings for possibly
> >modifying string literals.
>
> Surely "... if you do want ..."?
More oops.
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0101041707400.14622-100000>