This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: Patch installed for constification

To: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>
Subject: Re: Patch installed for constification
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
Date: 12 Sep 2001 21:41:47 +0200
Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <200109121724.NAA04346@caip.rutgers.edu><20010912192013.A4269@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>

Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> writes:

|> Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:-
|> 
|> > I found a lot of places where "const char *" could instead be
|> > tightened up as "const char *const".
|> 
|> Is this useful and worth it?  To me, the value of constness tends to
|> come from being a pointer to const, and not from being a const
|> pointer.

For automatic variables, I agree.  But for static variables it may be a
win since they can go to the rodata section.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab                                  "And now for something
Andreas.Schwab@suse.de				completely different."
SuSE Labs, SuSE GmbH, Schanzäckerstr. 10, D-90443 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5

References:
- Patch installed for constification
  - From: Kaveh R. Ghazi
- Re: Patch installed for constification
  - From: Neil Booth

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