This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: why are we not using const?

From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caipclassic dot rutgers dot edu>
To: pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
Cc: dave dot korn at artimi dot com, gcc at gnu dot org, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net, lopezibanez at gmail dot com, richard dot guenther at gmail dot com
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:15:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: why are we not using const?
References: <014d01c69b83$27ba9c40$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <78624A45-B2A5-458C-907C-3C8DF871EA4D@physics.uc.edu>

 > On Jun 29, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
 > 
 > That's cheating! You casted away const, it's a blatant aliasing
 > violation, you deserve everything you get.
 > 
 > No it is not, in fact it is legal C and there is no aliasing violation
 > as you are still accessing the memory as an "int".
 > -- Pinski

"Legal" does not mean it's a good idea.  Bypassing const through casts
is like ignoring documentation.  You get what you deserve.

E.g. if the object referred to by the pointer is in a read-only
section, casting away const-ness and modifying it leads to a core
dump...

		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu

Follow-Ups:
- RE: why are we not using const?
  - From: Dave Korn

References:
- RE: why are we not using const?
  - From: Dave Korn
- Re: why are we not using const?
  - From: Andrew Pinski

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]