Glenn Fowler wrote:
[CC:'ing some (random) compiler people and the linker alien (rod) to
take a look at this issue]
> I've been at this so long you think I should know better
>
> I've been under the apparently mistaken assumption that
> if I dilligently pepper struct definitions and subsequent
> d
Glenn Fowler wrote:
> I've been at this so long you think I should know better
>
> I've been under the apparently mistaken assumption that
> if I dilligently pepper struct definitions and subsequent
> declarations and initializations with "const" that the compiler
> will attempt to place that data
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:55:48 +0200 Roland Mainz wrote:
> Glenn Fowler wrote:
> [CC:'ing some (random) compiler people and the linker alien (rod) to
> take a look at this issue]
> > I've been at this so long you think I should know better
> >
> > I've been under the apparently mistaken assumption
I've been at this so long you think I should know better
I've been under the apparently mistaken assumption that
if I dilligently pepper struct definitions and subsequent
declarations and initializations with "const" that the compiler
will attempt to place that data in readonly text
I've done th
K&R says on page 40 that "the result is implementation-defined if an
attempt is made change a const." On page 211, it says that such
objects "may" be placed in read only memory. As far as I know, it's
unusual for a compiler to actually do so.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 04:22:23PM -0400, Glenn Fo
Hi Roland,
Can you please let me know how you have organised the ksh93(+test
suite) code in the prototype 5 of the ksh93-integration code-base that
has been released.
Going through the diff file isn't very helpful in getting to know how
and on what basis the sources+testscripts are organised. I s
