> From: Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> From: Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Paul Schlie wrote: >>> - ??? no such thing, you can't "dynamically" initialize a "static const", >>> as then it's not a "static const", but rather simply a global "const" >>> >>> (as a "static const" object is logically equivalent to a named/addressable >>> literal, yes?) >> >> No, it's not. >> >> static const int i = f(); > > Admittedly didn't think that was legal, as I though all "static const" > initializer values needed to be resolvable at compile time, directly or > indirectly from literal values by the front-end, or otherwise invalid.
So then more accurately, MEM_READONLY_P is only "true" for references to: - "static const" objects which are equated to a literal initializer. - or an arbitrary literal value which has not been in-lined into the code, as it's either too large to be done efficiently, or may be referenced indirectly via a pointer. (is this essentially correct?)
