Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > | With all due respect, unless there is an explicit reference in the
standard
| > | to contradict it's clearly stated requirement that an object's qualified
| > | lvalue ("locator value") designates the object being referenced, all
| > | interpretations to the contrary are at best presumptuous, regardless of
| > | whether or not it's generalized behavior may be indeterminate.
| > |
| > | (but regardless, at least things are successively approximating "correct")
| >
| > I don't understand what you mean here. Are you seriously suggesting
| > that
| >
| > int main(void) {
| > const int x = 4;
| > *(int*)&x = 3;
| > }
| >
| > is well-defined?
|
| Actually yes, I believe it's well defined that:
[#5] If an attempt is made to modify an object defined with
a const-qualified type through use of an lvalue with non-
const-qualified type, the behavior is undefined. If an
attempt is made to refer to an object defined with a
volatile-qualified type through use of an lvalue with non-
volatile-qualified type, the behavior is undefined.113)
-- Gaby
