Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 06:11:52 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <861q20q3tz.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <IoGcndcJ1Zm83zb7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <20240801174026.00002cda@yahoo.com> <v8gi7i$29iu1$1@dont-email.me> <slrnvaorkl.34j6.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid> <87zfpvfdk4.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v8ii17$2q5p1$1@dont-email.me> <87v80ig4vt.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86plqd2zhf.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87wmklh0dn.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 15:11:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5dc3c968fdc353e2fd687882edf89fc4";
	logging-data="3505173"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19s0f/2NdN8lklnkR1sfsWjQWdv+mEHTUc="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vcH9MqIsNOTjZ2Y5KeLcvOmzeZk=
	sha1:2yIfT5k7HBZOVacYi3UcpfA2Lb4=
Bytes: 2646

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Is there any reason not to always write ...
>>>>
>>>> static const char *s = "hello, world";
>>>>
>>>> ... ?
>>>>
>>>> You get all the warnings for free that way.
>>>
>>> The "static", if this is at block scope, specifies that the
>>> pointer object, not the array object, has static storage duration.
>>> If it's at file scope it specifies that the name "s" is not
>>> visible to other translation units.  Either way, use it if that's
>>> what you want, don't use it if it isn't.
>>>
>>> There's no good reason not to use "const".  [...]
>>
>> Other people have different opinions on that question.
>
> You could have told us your opinion.  You could have explained why
> someone might have a different opinion.  You could have given us a
> good reason not to use "const", assuming there is such a reason.
> You know the language well enough to make me suspect you might
> have something specific in mind.  [...]

I said all that I thought needed saying.  I see no reason
to add to it.