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?


On 29 June 2006 16:15, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:

>  > 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

  I believe that's basically what Andreas was pointing out; in that case, you
*are* violating the type of the underlying object.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


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