> To follow up on this, and after staring at too many outputs of the > compiler, I think what this really should be is: > static char const critical_overtemp_path[] = > "/sbin/critical_overtemp"; > right? > > That way both the variable, and the data, end up in read-only memory > from what I can tell. > > But, if I do: > static char const char critical_overtemp_path[] = > "/sbin/critical_overtemp"; > then sparse complains to me about: > warning: duplicate const > > Is that just sparse being dense, or is the latter one really better > here? It seems that both of the above put the data and variable into > the same segment (.rodata). > > thanks, > > greg k-h
Either 'char *const foo = "bar"' or 'const char *const foo = "bar" will also be a string constant in rodata with a pointer in rodata referring to them. Duplicate string constants get merged without any analysis as there's no guarantee of a unique address for the data itself since it's not a variable. 'const char foo[] = "bar"' goes into rodata too, but is the toolchain can't assume it can't safely merge strings + sizeof works but gcc/clang know how to optimize constant strlen anyway. The 'const' qualifier for pointers doesn't really do anything, it's when it's used on the variable (after the pointer) that it can do more than acting as a programming guide.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
