On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Vadim Lobanov <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > However, if the code is as follows:
> > void foo (void) {
> > int myvar = 0;
> > printf("%d\n", myvar);
> > bar(&myvar);
> > printf("%d\n", myvar);
> > }
> > If bar is declared in _another_ file as
> > void bar (const int * var);
> > then I think the compiler can validly cache the value of 'myvar' for the
> > second printf without re-reading it. Correct/incorrect?
>
> Incorrect. bar() may cast away const. In C const does not mean readonly.
In that case, I stand corrected.
Is there any real reason to apply const to pointer targets, aside from
giving yourself a warning in the case you try to write the pointer
target directly? Seems to be a missed opportunity for optimizations
where the coder designates that it's okay to do so.
> Andreas.
>
> --
> Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [email protected]
> SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
> "And now for something completely different."
>
-Vadim Lobanov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
