Re: [ALACPP] Why won't g++ tell me I'm dumb?

[Christopher Smith <x@xxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 21:42, Josh Dybnis wrote:
> Technically gcc is doing the right thing here. String literals aren't
> actually constants. It's pretty obscure. I had to actually bust out the
> standard on this. What it says is that string literals are static
> arrays of type char, not const char. Attempting to modify a string
> literal is "undefined", but it's not actually forbidden for an
> implementation to support it. This is from the C standard, but I assume
> that C++ retains this for compatibility.

Out of curiosity, is this from the C89 or C99 standard?

I thought the relevant section of the gcc info page would help give you
guys an idea as to why Kevin and I were surprised by this behavior:

`-fno-const-strings'
     Give string constants type `char *' instead of type `const char
     *'.  By default, G++ uses type `const char *' as required by the
     standard.  Even if you use `-fno-const-strings', you cannot
     actually modify the value of a string constant, unless you also use
     `-fwritable-strings'.

     This option might be removed in a future release of G++.  For
     maximum portability, you should structure your code so that it
     works with string constants that have type `const char *'.

FYI, doing "-fwritable-strings" does of course fix this problem.

-- 
Christopher Smith <x@xxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
alacpp mailing list
alacpp@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/alacpp