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: string literals vs char* |
| Date | 2014-12-27 22:03 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <cg7avjF6itsU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <549e45b4$0$280$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <ptss9a9fsoeqb304o4vmhht9qffb2414dg@4ax.com> |
Barry Schwarz wrote: > On 27 Dec 2014 05:37:56 GMT, arnuld <sunrise@invalid.address> wrote: > >> C90 requires that string literls are constant, then why I am not getting >> warning here. Is this a compiler problem ? (if it is a compiler problem > > There is a difference between constant and const. String literals > have always been considered constant (modifying one causes undefined > behavior). However, for historical reasons (not breaking really old > code) they are not const. Hence no diagnostic. You are however free > to define the pointer properly as > const char *p1; > which would have no effect on the operation of your program. > >> then why g++ catches the error at compile time when gccdoes not): > > I don't use g++ but based on the text of the diagnostic, it appears > that g++ treats the literals as const due to the specified option > being in effect. If you compiled the program without that option, I > would expect the diagnostic to disappear. No, they would remain. g++ is a C++ compiler and C++ fixes C's const omissions. -- Ian Collins
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
string literals vs char* arnuld <sunrise@invalid.address> - 2014-12-27 05:37 +0000
Re: string literals vs char* Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-27 06:36 +0000
Re: string literals vs char* Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2014-12-27 00:58 -0800
Re: string literals vs char* Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-27 22:03 +1300
Re: string literals vs char* Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-27 11:55 -0800
Re: string literals vs char* glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-28 07:55 +0000
Re: string literals vs char* Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-28 11:39 +0000
Re: string literals vs char* Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 08:55 -0700
Re: string literals vs char* Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-24 12:17 -0700
Re: string literals vs char* James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-27 11:36 -0500
Re: string literals vs char* Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-27 18:20 +0100
Re: string literals vs char* Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-27 18:55 +0100
Re: string literals vs char* Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-27 17:25 +0000
Re: string literals vs char* Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-27 12:08 -0800
Re: string literals vs char* James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-28 07:01 -0500
Re: string literals vs char* John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 10:52 -0800
csiph-web