From: Bruce Guenter <bruceg@em.ca>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] warnkill trivia 2/2
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:57:49 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020901155749.A8323@em.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020901123903.GB7325@louise.pinerecords.com>; from szepe@pinerecords.com on Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:39:03PM +0200
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1319 bytes --]
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:39:03PM +0200, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> I've been playing a bit with how gcc handles the const qualifiers
> and made an interesting discovery:
>
> Trying to compile
>
> typedef int *p_int;
> void a(const p_int t) { *t = 0; }
> void b(const p_int t) { t = (int *) 0; }
> void c(const int *t) { *t = 0; }
> void d(const int *t) { t = (int *) 0; }
> void e(int const *t) { *t = 0; }
> void f(int const *t) { t = (int *) 0; }
>
> will give 'assignment of read-only location' warnings for
> b(), c() and e(), i.e. it's impossible to have a constant
> pointer to a non-constant value w/o using a qualified
> typedef.
If you want a constant *pointer*, use:
void f(int* const t)
(read "f is a function, taking parameter constant pointer to
int, returning void)
> W/o a typedef, gcc seems unable to tell the difference
> between 'const int *' and 'int const *' altogether.
That's because there is no difference ("pointer to integer constant" vs
"pointer to constant integer").
See http://untroubled.org/articles/cdecls.txt for one of the best
references I've ever seen to understanding C type declarations.
--
Bruce Guenter <bruceg@em.ca> http://em.ca/~bruceg/ http://untroubled.org/
OpenPGP key: 699980E8 / D0B7 C8DD 365D A395 29DA 2E2A E96F B2DC 6999 80E8
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-01 21:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-01 10:56 Tomas Szepe
2002-09-01 10:57 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-01 11:28 ` Tomas Szepe
2002-09-01 11:25 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-01 11:37 ` Tomas Szepe
2002-09-01 11:35 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-01 12:10 ` Tomas Szepe
2002-09-01 12:16 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-01 12:39 ` Tomas Szepe
2002-09-01 21:57 ` Bruce Guenter [this message]
2002-09-02 22:24 ` Jan Hudec
2002-09-01 15:27 ` [PATCH] warnkill trivia 2/2 (correction) Tomas Szepe
2002-09-01 14:52 [PATCH] warnkill trivia 2/2 Mikael Pettersson
2002-09-01 14:56 ` Tomas Szepe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020901155749.A8323@em.ca \
--to=bruceg@em.ca \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome