lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: typedefs and structs
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Andreas Schwab wrote:

> Vadim Lobanov <vlobanov@speakeasy.net> 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, schwab@suse.de
> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-10 00:42    [W:0.134 / U:0.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site