Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: int * vs char * |
| Date | 2011-06-23 07:56 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <96evn3FmtvU8@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <itr3lm$i8j$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lnliwuiz7c.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <its93d$62e$1@dont-email.me> <itsfv5$e9l$1@dont-email.me> |
On 06/22/11 10:25 PM, James Kuyper wrote: > On 06/22/2011 04:28 AM, Noob wrote: > ... >> Since modifying a character string literal already has UB in >> the current standard, then why doesn't the next standard >> specify that string literal have type const char[] instead >> of just char[] ? > > It would break a large amount of existing code. The most common problem > would be code which assigns the pointer value of a string literal to a > char* object. You could argue that this is bad practice - if a pointer > might be pointing at a string literal, it should be declared 'const > char*', rather than 'char*'. However, there's no actual problem with > such code so long as no attempt is made to write through that pointer > value, and there's an awful lot of existing code which relies upon that > fact. The existing code problem was a acknowledged when C++ changed the type of string literals. Compilers may choose not to issues a diagnostic for this case. Now we have had over a decade to fix the smelly code, I believe a diagnostic is now required by the new C++ standard. C could and should have done the same, but as usual those worried about breaking already broken code appear to have won the day. -- Ian Collins
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
int * vs char * yugandhar <nospam@nospam.com> - 2011-06-21 21:49 +0000
Re: int * vs char * John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-06-21 21:58 +0000
Re: int * vs char * "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-06-21 20:25 -0400
Re: int * vs char * Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-22 09:59 +1200
Re: int * vs char * Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-21 22:18 +0000
Re: int * vs char * Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-21 18:34 -0500
Re: int * vs char * Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-21 15:42 -0700
Re: int * vs char * Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-22 10:28 +0200
Re: int * vs char * Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 05:23 -0500
Re: int * vs char * James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-22 06:25 -0400
Re: int * vs char * Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-23 07:56 +1200
Re: int * vs char * Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 18:12 -0500
Re: int * vs char * Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-23 10:23 +1200
Re: int * vs char * Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-22 17:23 -0700
Re: int * vs char * Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-23 12:54 +1200
Re: int * vs char * Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-22 18:18 -0700
Re: int * vs char * Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-23 13:23 +1200
Re: int * vs char * Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-24 15:39 -0400
Re: int * vs char * Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-25 09:28 +1200
Re: int * vs char * Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-24 14:58 -0700
Re: int * vs char * Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-25 10:06 +1200
Re: int * vs char * Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-26 15:44 -0500
Re: int * vs char * Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-24 14:29 -0700
Re: int * vs char * Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-25 09:36 +1200
Re: int * vs char * Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-26 16:24 -0500
Re: int * vs char * Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-25 08:39 -0700
Re: int * vs char * gordonb.5qick@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-22 23:49 -0500
Re: int * vs char * Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-06-22 11:31 -0500
Re: int * vs char * gordonb.idn9q@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-23 00:45 -0500
Re: int * vs char * pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-06-23 20:08 +0000
Re: int * vs char * Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-06-23 22:40 -0500
Re: int * vs char * Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-24 15:46 +1200
Re: int * vs char * Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-06-24 09:24 -0500
Re: int * vs char * Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 18:00 -0400
Re: int * vs char * Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-05 07:45 +0100
Re: int * vs char * Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 10:39 -0700
Re: int * vs char * Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 14:09 -0400
Re: int * vs char * Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 21:56 +0300
Re: int * vs char * Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 02:46 +0300
Re: int * vs char * Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 22:26 -0400
Re: int * vs char * Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-07 22:41 -0500
Re: int * vs char * "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 15:32 -0400
Re: int * vs char * Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 09:58 -0400
Re: int * vs char * Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-23 01:02 -0700
Re: int * vs char * Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-23 20:11 +1200
Re: int * vs char * Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-25 09:23 -0700
Re: int * vs char * Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-25 12:37 -0700
Re: int * vs char * Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-27 11:40 -0700
Re: int * vs char * Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-21 21:46 -0400
Re: int * vs char * "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-22 10:06 -0700
Re: int * vs char * Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-22 13:06 -0700
Re: int * vs char * "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-22 13:29 -0700
Re: int * vs char * Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-06-21 21:29 -0500
csiph-web