> From: James E Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 04:58, Paul Schlie wrote:
>> Thanks. After going through the code, it's even further not clear why
>> STRING_CST string literal data references treated differently than
>> static const char array literal data references to begin with?
>> Why is this necessary?
>
> Why is what necessary? You haven't actually said anything concrete that
> I can answer.
Sorry. More specifically:
- Why are string literal character arrays not constructed and expanded as
character array literals are? (as although similar, there are distinct
sets of code expanding references to each of them; which seems both
unnecessary, and error prone (as evidenced by string literal memory
references not being properly identified as READONLY, although their
equivalent array representations are treated properly for example?)
- If the only difference which exists between them is how their values
are "pretty-printed" as strings, vs. array values; then it would seem
that although they may be labeled differently, but utilize be constructed
and expanded equivalently? If this is not true, why must they be distinct?
- I.e.
char x[3] = "abc";
seems as if it should be literally equivalent in all respects to:
char y[3] = {'a','b','c'};
but are not constructed/expanded as being equivalent?
